HARVARD 
HISTORICAL    STUDIES 


PUBLISHED   UNDER  THE   DIRECTION   OF  THE   DEPARTMENT   OF 
HISTORY   AND   GOVERNMENT   FROM   THE   INCOME   OF 


f|ettr?  Warren  Corte? 


VOLUME   VI. 


c> 


O 


THE 


LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PARTIES 


IN 


THE  NORTHWEST 


TOPPAN    PRIZE    ESSAY  OF    1896 


BY 

THEODORE   CLARKE   SMITH,  PH.D. 

SOMETIME   OZIAS  GOODWIN   MEMORIAL   FELLOW  OF   HARVARD    UNIVERSITY 
INSTRUCTOR  IN   THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  MICHIGAN 


NEW  YORK 
LONGMANS,    GREEN,   AND    CO. 

LONDON    AND    BOMBAY 
1897 


r'Y 


Copyright,  1897, 
BY  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  FELLOWS  OF  HARVARD  COLLEGE. 


UNIVERSITY  PRESS: 
JOHN  WILSON  AND  SON,  CAMBRIDGE,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE. 


THE  history  of  the  anti-slavery  controversy  in  Congress 
and  in  national  politics  is  the  subject  of  a  vast  and  in- 
creasing number  of  writings  ranging  from  monographs 
to  large  volumes,  but  the  local  history  of  this  great 
struggle  has  received  little  or  no  attention.  Believing, 
with  many  students  of  recent  years,  that  national  and 
State  politics  are  too  closely  related,  logically  to  admit 
of  such  absolute  separation,  I  have  endeavored  in  this 
monograph,  by  a  study  of  the  political  anti-slavery 
parties  in  the  Old  Northwest,  to  work  out  the  local 
history  of  that  great  movement  in  a  region  of  which  the 
importance  in  our  national  development  has  not  always 
been  adequately  recognized.  Combined  with  this  main 
object  —  and  in  my  mind  scarcely  less  important  —  has 
been  the  effort  to  add  to  the  knowledge  of  the  growth 
of  the  American  party  system. 

This  work  has  occupied  much  of  my  time  during  three 
years  spent  in  the  Seminary  of  American  History  and 
Institutions  of  Harvard  University,  and  one  year  in  the 
University  of  Wisconsin.  The  authorities  used  are 
stated  and  explained  in  an  Appendix  below  :  they  have 
been  found  by  search  in  the  great  libraries  of  Boston, 


VI  PREFACE. 

Cambridge,  and  Madison,  Wisconsin,  by  visits  to  many 
places  in  the  various  Northwestern  States,  and  by  corre- 
spondence with  survivors  of  the  period  studied  and  their 
descendants.  Yet  the  diaries  and  letters  of  the  anti- 
slavery  leaders,  the  reminiscences  and  biographies,  have 
furnished  but  a  small  part  of  the  material.  The  recol- 
lections of  living  men,  communicated  in  person  or  by 
letters,  have  been  suggestive,  but  have  been  used  as 
authorities  only  to  explain  facts  already  learned  from 
contemporary  material.  The  most  valuable  group  of 
sources  has  therefore  been  the  newspapers  of  the  time, 
and  especially  the  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  press. 

In  reaching,  studying,  and  arranging  this  large  and 
confused  mass  of  material,  I  have  received  indispensable 
assistance  and  kindness  in  every  quarter.  I  desire  to 
express  a  special  obligation  to  the  following  gentlemen : 
Prof.  Frederick  J.  Turner  of  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin ;  Mr.  Reuben  G.  Thwaites,  Secretary  of  the 
Wisconsin  Historical  Society;  Mr.  Warren  Upham, 
Secretary  of  the  Western  Reserve  Historical  Society ; 
Hon.  Edward  L.  Pierce,  Milton,  Massachusetts  ;  Hon. 
Samuel  D.  Hastings,  Madison,  Wisconsin ;  Prof.  W.  P. 
Howe,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Iowa;  Mr.  Charles  M.  Zug,  Rev. 
George  W.  Clark,  and  Rev.  J.  F.  Conover,  Detroit, 
Michigan;  Hon.  Albert  G.  Riddle  and  Gen.  William 
Birney,  Washington,  D.  C.  ;  Hon.  George  Hoadly, 
New  York;  and  Mr.  Sherman  M.  Booth,  Chicago.  I 
also  wish  to  record  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Herbert  Putnam 
of  the  Boston  Public  Library,  who  gave  me  access  to  the 
newspapers  of  that  institution  while  as  yet  unclassified 
and  unarranged ;  and  the  courtesy  of  the  editorial  staffs 


PREFACE.  Vll 

of  the  Chicago  Journal  and  Cleveland  Leader  who  have 
given  me  every  facility  to  examine  the  valuable  files  of 
these  papers. 

Especially  do  I  wish  to  thank  the  Hon.  George  W. 
Julian,  of  Irvington,  Indiana,  for  the  unfailing  kindness 
and  courtesy  with  which  on  very  many  occasions  he  has 
aided  me  by  his  manuscript  records  and  his  own  accurate 
memory.  Finally,  and  above  all,  I  wish  to  express  my 
indebtedness  to  Prof.  Albert  Bushnell  Hart,  of  Harvard 
University,  at  whose  suggestion  and  under  whose  guid- 
ance the  work  was  begun,  and  from  whom  at  every  stage 
I  have  received  invaluable  advice  and  assistance. 

THEODORE   CLARKE   SMITH. 
ANN  ARBOR,  November,  1897. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

PAGE 
THE  NORTHWEST  IN  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.    1830-1861     .       i 

CHAPTER   II. 
ANTI-SLAVERY  BEGINNINGS  IN  THE  NORTHWEST.     1830-1838     .     .      6 

CHAPTER  III. 
ABOLITION  IN  WESTERN  POLITICS.     1836-1839 19 

CHAPTER  IV. 
BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  THIRD  PARTY.     1836-1840 27 

CHAPTER  V. 
ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  LIBERTY  PARTY.     1840-1843 48 

CHAPTER  VI. 
THE  LIBERTY  MEN  HOLD  THE  BALANCE  OF  POWER.     1843-1845  .     69 

CHAPTER  VII. 

DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN.     1845-1847     ....     85 


x  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

PAGE 
THE    LIBERTY    PARTY   IN   THE   WILMOT   PROVISO    CONTROVERSY. 

1846-1848 705 

CHAPTER   IX. 

COMBINATION   OF  THIRD-PARTY   MEN   ON  THE  FREE  SOIL  ISSUE. 

1848 121 

CHAPTER  X. 
CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  FREE  SOIL  PARTY.     1848 138 

CHAPTER  XI. 
THE  OHIO  SENATORIAL  CONTEST.     1849 160 

CHAPTER  XII. 

COLLAPSE  OF  THE  FREE  SOIL  PARTY  IN  THE  THREE  OHIO  RIVER 

STATES.     1849-1850 176 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

COLLAPSE  OF  THE  FREE   SOIL   PARTY  IN   MICHIGAN,  WISCONSIN, 

AND  IOWA.     1849-1850 198 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
CAUSES  OF  THE  FREE  SOIL  COLLAPSE.     1849-1850 220 

CHAPTER  XV. 
THE  FREE  DEMOCRACY  STANDS  AGAINST  FINALITY.     1850-1851  .     226 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
THE  FREE  DEMOCRACY  IN  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852.     1851-1852     245 


CONTENTS.  xj 

CHAPTER   XVII. 

PAGE 
EXPANSION  OF  THE  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.     1853    .     .     .     .     261 

CHAPTER  -XVIII. 
WHIGS  AND  FREE  DEMOCRATS  IN  WISCONSIN.     1853      .    .    .    .     278 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY   ATTAINS  NIRVANA  IN  THE  ANTI- 
NEBRASKA  MOVEMENT.     1854 285 

CHAPTER  XX. 
THE  RESULT  OF  TWENTY  YEARS'  EFFORT.     1834-1854     .     .     .     298 


APPENDICES. 

A.  BIBLIOGRAPHY 309 

B.  LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PRESS  nsr  THE  NORTHWEST   .     .     .  318 

C.  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  THIRD- PARTY  VOTE  (WITH  MAPS)  .     .  325 

D.  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTIONS   AND   DIRECT  POPULAR  VOTES 

UPON  NEGRO  DISABILITIES.     1845-1851 332 


INDEX 339 


THE 
LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PARTIES, 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE   NORTHWEST   IN   THE  ANTI-SLAVERY   STRUGGLE. 

1830-1861. 

THE  years  1854-56  saw  the  creation  of  a  new  party  out 
of  fragments  of  the  Whig  organization  combined  with  anti- 
slavery  Democrats,  Free  Soilers,  Temperance  men,  Abolition- 
ists, and  Know  Nothings.  Great,  however,  as  was  the  popular 
upheaval  at  this  time,  the  platform  and  programme  of  the  party 
were  by  no  means  new ;  for  its  opposition  to  the  extension  of 
slavery  had  long  been  the  basis  of  certain  political  organizations, 
in  which,  moreover,  many  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  Republican 
party  had  gained  that  experience  and  prominence  which  gave 
them  their  leadership.  In  fact,  to  their  thirteen  years  of  activ- 
ity may  justly  be  ascribed,  in  no  small  degree,  the  growth  of 
that  Northern  anti-slavery  sentiment  which  in  1854,  by  the  for- 
mation of  the  new  party,  took  the  first  political  step  toward 
civil  war ;  yet  notwithstanding  these  well-known  facts,  there  has 
so  far  been  no  adequate  study  of  the  development  and  achieve- 
ments of  the  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties. 

In  political  matters  the  "  Old  Northwest,"  maintaining  in  most 
respects  the  characteristics  of  a  frontier  region  down  to  the 
middle  of  the  century,  presents  features  of  peculiar  interest. 
Organization  was  incomplete,  personalities  counted  for  more 
than  principles,  and  eloquence  and  combativeness  for  more  than 


2  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE  NORTHWEST. 

social  culture  and  wealth :  hence  there  was  an  unsteadiness  in 
party  fortunes  and,  particularly  in  anti-slavery  matters,  a  vari- 
ableness in  political  opinion  far  exceeding  similar  phenomena  in 
New  England  and  in  the  Middle  States.  Hence,  in  the  West 
began  the  uprising  of  1854,  which  in  one  year  accomplished 
the  creation  of  a  new  party  and  the  complete  overthrow  in  most 
of  the  Western  States  of  the  hitherto  victorious  Democracy. 

It  is  this  last  feature  which  gives  to  the  anti-slavery  move- 
ment in  the  Northwest  its  peculiar  significance.  Had  not  the 
Republican  party  been  born  in  the  Northwest,  had  not  this  sec- 
tion as  a  unit  taken  the  lead  in  the  movement,  the  history  of 
the  country  would  probably  have  been  altogether  different.  The 
Middle  and  Eastern  States,  slow  as  they  were  to  change  front, 
might  have  been  expected  eventually  to  oppose  the  spread  of 
slavery;  but  had  not  the  Northwest  also  proved  anti-slavery  in 
character,  the  action  of  the  East  might  have  had  more  resem- 
blance to  the  Hartford  Convention  of  1814  than  to  the  Repub- 
lican Convention  of  1860;  and  the  war  which  followed  might 
have  been  directed,  not  against  Southern,  but  against  Northern 
secession. 

The  new  States,  then,  eventually  turned  the  scale  in  favor  of 
freedom;  but  what  determined  their  action?  Any  Northwest- 
erner  during  the  years  1840  to  1860  would  have  said  without 
hesitation  that  the  an^slavery  clause  of  the  Northwest  Ordi- 
nance, by  excluding  slaves  and  slave-holders,  had  settled  the 
question  from  the  outset.  Modern  opinion,  however,  suspicious 
of  such  generalizations,  and  inclined  to  look  for  something  more 
deep-seated  than  "  mere  legislation  "  to  account  for  the  social 
and  political  characteristics  of  a  vast  region,  inclines  to  believe 
that  the  result  would  have  been  the  same,  even  had  there  been  \ 
no  prohibition  of  slavery  in  1787 ;  that  it  was  the  stream  of  emi- 
grants from  New  England,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  pouring 
first  into  Ohio,  then  Michigan  and  Indiana,  and  lastly  Illinois, 
Wisconsin,  and  Iowa,  who  inevitably  preserved  the  Northwestern 
States  for  freedom,  in  spite  of  a  large  immigration  from  Vir- 
ginia, Maryland,  and  Kentucky.  It  was,  according  to  this  view, 
a  mere  question  of  physiography,  the  slave-holding  States  natu- 
rally pouring  their  surplus  population  into  the  neighboring 


EFFECT  OF  THE   ORDINANCE   OF  1787.  3 

Southwest,  the  free  States  into  the  Northwest,  each  seeking 
physical  conditions  similar  to  those  of  the  parent  communities. 

In  the  case  of  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  we  may  at  the  outset 
admit  the  truth  of  this  explanation,  for  these  regions  were  too 
far  north  to  be  easily  accessible  to  Southern  immigration  or  to 
furnish  profitable  fields  for  slave  labor;  but  in  regard  to  the 
southern  tier  of  free  States  something  may  be  said  in  favor  of 
the  old  view.  Nearly  half  of  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  a  large 
part  of  Ohio,  lay  to  the  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  in 
immediate  contact  with  slave  territory.  In  this  region  slavery 
was  just  as  likely  to  be  profitable  as  in  Missouri,  Kentucky, 
Virginia,  and  Maryland ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  these  sections 
actually  were  settled  by  people  from  the  South,  so  that  each  of 
these  three  Ohio  River  States  —  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  — 
repeated  in  miniature  the  political  condition  of  the  nation  dur- 
ing the  first  half  of  the  century.  Men  of  Southern  birth  or 
descent  led  parties,  directed  the  State  policy,  and  furnished 
the  great  majority  of  governors,  judges,  senators,  and  State 
officials  of  all  kinds,  until  the  Republican  outburst  drove  them 
from  power.  The  influx  from  New  England,  New  York,  and 
Pennsylvania  was  very  large  in  these  States,  and  played  a  very 
important  part  in  preparing  the  way  for  the  Republican  move- 
ment; but  until  very  late  it  had  little  more  effect  in  directing 
State  sentiment  than  had  New  England  in  influencing  Federal 
policy  toward  slavery.  Having  the  power,  then,  why  did  not 
the  Southern-born  leaders  of  these  States  admit  slavery? 
What  was  the  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  efforts  made  in  all 
three  States?  The  reason,  it  would  seem,  must  lie  in  the  fact 
that  the  prohibition  of  slavery  had  kept  people  who  lived  by 
the  institution  from  coming  into  these  States,  so  that  in  the 
years  1800  to  1830  the  majority  of  Southerners  in  the  North- 
west, although  sympathizing  in  most  respects  with  the  Southern 
point  of  view,  had  never  held  slaves  themselves,  were  personally 
indifferent  to  the  system  of  slavery,  and  cared  nothing  for  its 
introduction. 

The  Ordinance  of  1787,  therefore,  by  determining  the  char- 
acter of  the  settlers  during  the  territorial  period,  did  fulfil  its 
purpose  of  keeping  slavery  out  of  the  Northwest;  but  no 


4  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE  NORTHWEST. 

legislation  could  or  did  make  anti-slavery  a  dominant  political 
force  in  that  region.  Over  half  a  century  was  to  pass  before 
the  rule  of  Southern  sympathizers  was  repudiated  by  the  North- 
west, and  before  the  States  subject  to  the  Ordinance  of  1787  — 
together  with  Iowa,  first  fruits  for  the  North  of  the  Louisiana 
Purchase  and  the  Missouri  Compromise  —  determined  to  throw 
their  weight  against  Southern  domination  at  Washington  and 
in  the  State  capitals. 

In  bringing  about  this  result,  political  agitation  played  a 
prominent  part ;  and  it  is  this  phase  of  the  anti-slavery  move- 
ment with  which  the  present  monograph  is  concerned.  That 
no  attempt  is  here  made  to  cover  the  entire  field  of  anti-slavery 
action,  but  mainly  its  political  aspects,  must  not  be  understood 
to  imply  that  political  anti-slavery  agitation  was  more  important 
than  purely  moral  and  religious  action ;  for  the  appeal  to  the 
conscience  was  in  fact  the  cause  and  condition  of  the  existence 
of  anti-slavery  sentiment,  and  continued  steadily  in  operation 
during  the  entire  course  of  the  Liberty,  Free  Soil,  and  Repub- 
lican parties.  "  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  teachings 
of  the  Gospel  were  decisive  influences  in  thousands  of  individual 
cases  in  the  United  States  in  creating  a  public  opinion  against 
slavery  before  the  civil  war;  but  it  would  be  far  more  difficult 
to  write  the  history  of  their  action  than  to  write  the  history  of 
the  political  influences  which  combined  with  them."  ] 

The  mistake  is  often  made  of  failing  to  distinguish  between 
the  different  forms  of  anti-slavery  agitation,  and  confusing  the 
terms  "  anti-slavery  "  and  "  abolition."  2  Only  before  1840  did 
"  abolitionist "  and  "  anti-slavery  man  "  mean  the  same  thing. 
From  1840  to  1848  the  name  of  "abolitionist"  was  accepted 
by  such  men  only  as  sought  anti-slavery  ends  outside  the  long 
established  political  and  moral  agencies ;  it  included  not  only  the 
Garrisonians,  but  also  Liberty  men  of  all  shades.  After  1848 
the  term,  although  often  used  as  equivalent  to  "Free  Soil" 
or  "  Republican,"  was  generally  avoided  by  those  parties ; 

1  G.  B.  Adams,  Civilization  during  the  Middle  Ages,  51. 

2  See,  for  example,  the  hopeless  vagueness  of  the  use  of  the  words  in 
J.  T.  Morse's  Abraham  Lincoln,  I.   176-7,  where  Giddings  and  Garrison 
are  classed  together. 


"ABOLITION"  AND  "ANTI-SLAVERY."  5 

but  it  remained  the  appellative  of  two  groups,  —  the  Garriso- 
nians,  and  the  followers  of  Gerrit  Smith  and  William  Goodell. 
Nevertheless,  the  two  men  commonly  referred  to  as  the  personi- 
fication of  abolitionism  are  William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  Wendell 
Phillips,  whose  striking  personality  causes  the  fact  to  be  for- 
gotten that  after  1840  their  followers  in  the  whole  United  States 
numbered  at  the  most  a  few  thousands,  and  that  their  leadership 
was  expressly  repudiated  by  the  majority  of  actual  "  abolition- 
ists." In  the  Northwest  there  was,  after  1840,  very  little  knowl- 
edge of  Garrison  and  his  methods,  the  main  interest  of  Western 
anti-slavery  men  finding  its  outlet  in  political  action  rather  than 
in  demands  for  disunion. 

To  separate  out  the  political  from  the  moral  movement  is, 
therefore,  possible.  It  is  the  aim  of  this  monograph  to  describe 
that  political  activity  which  was  most  characteristic  of  the 
Western  movement,  and  to  trace  the  growth  of  anti-slavery 
political  parties  in  the  several  Northwestern  States,  from  their 
beginnings  to  the  time  when  the  public  sentiment  which  they 
had  assisted  so  powerfully  to  create  resulted  in  the  formation 
of  the  Republican  party,  in  the  year  1854.  It  does  not  treat 
of  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  except  when  directly 
concerned  with  anti-slavery  questions  or  with  the  Liberty  and 
Free  Soil  organizations;  nor  does  it  include,  except  for  pur- 
poses of  illustration  or  explanation,  any  consideration  of  the 
Congressional  action  of  Northwestern  men,  whether  as  members 
of  the  old  parties  or  of  the  distinctively  anti-slavery  bodies. 


CHAPTER   II. 

ANTI-SLAVERY   BEGINNINGS    IN   THE   NORTHWEST. 
1830-1838. 

IN  1830  the  conception  that  slavery  was  "a  problem"  was 
little  known  in  the  Northwest;  still  less  the  idea  that  it  was  a 
national  sin  or  a  crime.  Neither  the  Virginia  immigrant  nor  his 
neighbor  from  New  England  had  any  particular  fondness  for 
the  institution ;  but  the  thought  that  it  bore  any  different  rela- 
tion to  them  than  did  poverty,  crime,  or  evil  in  the  abstract 
scarcely  entered  their  minds.  That  there  could  be  any  remedy 
for  it  seemed  never  to  occur  to  either  group. 

Certain  movements  of  an  anti-slavery  character  with  which 
the  Northwest  was  not  wholly  unacquainted  had,  it  is  true,  taken 
place  in  the  preceding  decade ;  but  these  were  not  of  a  kind 
to  disturb  the  general  indifference,  nor  were  they  in  fact  on  the 
same  basis  as  the  later  anti-slavery  agitation.  An  emancipation 
propaganda,  mainly  in  the  Southern  States,  had  been  in  exist- 
ence for  a  score  of  years,  and  since  1814  had  gone  so  far  as  to 
bring  about  national  conventions,  representing  in  all  over  a 
hundred  local  societies.  There  had  been  a  few  societies  in 
Ohio,  and  one  or  two  abolition  newspapers  had  sprung  up,  no- 
tably Benjamin  Lundy's  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,  and 
Charles  Osborn's  Philanthropist ;  and  in  1824  the  Ohio  legis- 
lature had  adopted  resolutions  favoring  gradual  emancipation ;  l 
but  the  whole  movement  was  so  purely  moral  and  unaggressive, 
and  its  activity  was  so  largely  confined  to  the  slave  States,  that 
upon  the  Northwest  it  made  little  general  impression.  By  1830 
these  societies  had  begun  to  decay  rapidly  in  the  South,  and, 
1  Senate  Journal,  18  Cong.,  i  sess.  245  (March  23,  1824). 


EMANCIPATION  AND   COLONIZATION.  7 

although  some  of  them  still  existed  in  Ohio,  they  were  without 
vigor,  and  attracted  no  attention  whatever.1 

There  had  been  two  controversies  which  brought  slavery  into 
politics :  the  national  struggle  leading  to  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise, and  the  local  attempts  to  introduce  slavery  into  the  North- 
western States;  2  but  by  1830  both  of  them  were  passing  into 
oblivion,  almost  forgotten  in  the  rush  of  tariff  and  financial  con- 
troversy, and  the  results  of  both  were  so  thoroughly  acquiesced 
in  that  revival  seemed  impossible.  Both  of  these  struggles, 
moreover,  were  too  purely  defensive  on  the  part  of  the  free 
States  to  suggest  any  aggressive  conflict  with  slavery  where  it 
already  existed. 

Colonization,  the  only  philanthropic  movement  which  at  this 
time  concerned  the  negroes  as  such,  was  not  in  any  sense 
anti-slavery:  it  had  for  its  basis  the  inferiority  of  negroes  and 
their  incompatibility  with  whites ;  it  was  therefore,  at  its  best, 
only  an  attempt  to  better  the  lot  of  free  blacks,  while  in  the 
South  it  was  looked  upon  chiefly  as  a  means  of  removing  a 
class  whose  existence  in  a  slave-holding  community  was  an 
anomaly  and  a  possible  danger.  In  1830,  however,  the  activity 
of  this  movement  in  the  North  seemed  justified,  in  the  minds  of 
benevolent  people,  by  the  apparently  hopeless  degradation  in 
which  free  blacks  were  condemned  to  live ;  for  in  every  free 
State  "Black  Laws,"  of  varying  degrees  of  rigor,  segregated 
them  as  an  inferior  class  under  grave  social,  civil,  and  political 
disabilities.3  Without  going  into  all  the  details,  it  may  be  said 
that  in  the  Northwest  free  negroes  could  not  testify  against  a 
white,  serve  on  juries,  vote,  or  send  their  children  to  public 
schools ;  they  were  forbidden,  in  some  cases,  to  enter  the 
State  without  giving  bonds  not  to  become  paupers;  and  if 

1  For  the  emancipation  movement  before  1830,  see  Henry  Wilson,  Slave 
Power,  I.  chs.  ii,  xiii,  xiv,  and  William  Birney,/.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times, 
74-86,  169,  382-412. 

2  On   the  efforts  to  introduce  slavery  into  the   Northwest,  see  B.   A. 
Hinsdale,  The  Old  Northwest,  351-67. 

8  Ohio  laws  of  Jan.  5,  1804;  Jan.  5,  1807;  Feb.  9,  March  14,  1831. 
Indiana  laws  of  Dec.  30,  1816;  Jan.  28,  1818;  Jan.  22,  1824.  Illinois  laws 
of  March  22,  1819;  Jan.  3,  17,  1825;  Jan.  17,  1829;  Feb.  I,  1831.  Iowa 
law  of  Jan.  21,  1839. 


8  ANTI-SLA  VER  Y  BEGINNINGS. 

they  were  claimed  as  slaves,  they  were  obliged,  under  the 
national  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  or  under  special  State  laws,  to 
prove  their  title  to  freedom  before  a  magistrate  alone,  without 
the  privilege  of  a  jury.  That  any  incongruity  existed  between 
these  Black  Laws  and  the  long  Bills  of  Rights  prefixed  to  the 
various  State  constitutions,  scarcely  occurred  to  any  one.  The 
negro  disabilities  were  considered  fit  and  necessary;  they 
merely  proved  how  much  it  was  for  the  interest  of  the  free 
blacks  to  go  to  Liberia  under  the  auspices  of  the  Coloniza- 
tion Society. 

Some  scattered  individuals  could  be  found,  however,  to  whom 
the  system  of  negro  bondage  appeared  something  else  than 
merely  a  regrettable  necessity.  Many  of  these  were  anti- 
slavery  Quakers,  whose  conscientious  scruples  are  shown,  for 
example,  by  the  fact  that  a  dry-goods  store  in  Philadelphia 
kept  by  Lydia  White,  a  Quakeress,  whose  wares  were  made 
entirely  by  free  labor,  received  orders  from  far-off  Ohio  and 
Indiana.1  There  were  others  whose  sensibilities  had  been 
roused  by  the  sight  of  a  fugitive-slave  chase,  or  by  the  kid- 
napping of  a  free  black ;  and  there  were  still  more  who  from 
religious  logic  found  themselves  unable  to  reconcile  slavery 
and  Christianity.  Many  of  the  last-mentioned  were  Southern 
men,  who  had  become  convinced  of  the  iniquity  of  the  slave 
system,  and  had  removed  to  the  North  to  escape  from  contact 
with  it.  Some  of  these  had  been  active  in  the  earlier  emanci- 
pation movement,  and  still  continued  to  assert  the  sinfulness  of 
slavery,2  and  without  doubt  to  assist  fugitives  with  all  possible 
zeal.3 

Thus,  while  on  the  whole  Northwestern  popular  feeling  was 
utterly  indifferent,  anti-slavery  elements  were  slowly  growing. 
What  was  needed  was  some  stimulus  to  rouse  them  into  activity. 
Vague  dislikes,  religious  scruples,  sentimental  and  emotional 

1  Liberator ',  May  28,  1831. 

2  See,  for  example,  W.  Birney,/.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  382  seq.,  and 
G.  W.  Julian,  The  Genesis  of  Modern  Abolitionism,  in  the  International 
Review,  June,  1882. 

8  For  details,  see  W.  F.  Siebert,  Underground  Railroad  (in  preparation, 
1897). 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE  "LIBERATOR."  9 

objections,  must  be  united  in  pursuit  of  some  tangible  end 
before  the  popular  indifference  could  be  pierced.  This  stimu- 
lus, this  direction,  was  undoubtedly  furnished  in  the  years  1831- 
35  by  William  Lloyd  Garrison's  Liberator,  whose  eloquent, 
uncompromising,  even  violent  utterances,  demanding  imme- 
diate, unconditional  emancipation,  fell  with  thrilling  effect 
upon  the  nascent  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  Northwest. 
The  man  into  whose  hands  a  copy  came  could  no  longer 
maintain  a  careless  indifference  on  the  subject;  he  might  be 
alarmed  or  indignant,  but  he  was  forced  to  think,  and  with 
many  men  there  could  be  but  one  outcome.  The  paper  made 
converts  from  the  very  start;  to  the  old-time  emancipationists 
it  came  like  a  draught  of  fire  reviving  their  enthusiasm  and  re- 
doubling their  energies.  Still  better,  the  Liberator  served  as  an 
outlet  to  sentiments  that  had  hitherto  been  suppressed ;  it  put 
Western  and  Eastern  anti-slavery  men  into  communication  with 
each  other;  and,  from  its  unique  position  as  the  only  aggressive 
abolition  paper  in  the  country,  it  served  as  a  national  organ. 
It  must  always  be  remembered  that  Western  abolitionism  had  an 
independent  beginning;  but  while  credit  for  independent  action 
must  be  given  to  President  Storrs  of  Western  Reserve  College ; 
to  Asa  Mahan,  John  Rankin,  Elizur  Wright,  Jr.,  Beriah  Green, 
Theodore  D.  Weld,  and  Samuel  Crothers  in  Ohio ;  to  Charles 
Osborne  in  Indiana ;  and  to  James  G.  Birney  in  Kentucky,  never- 
theless the  establishment  of  the  Liberator  gave  the  abolition 
cause  its  first  real  impetus  in  the  West  as  well  as  in  the  East. 

The  smouldering  flames  thus  fanned  by  Garrison  spread  in  all 
directions,  and  within  a  year  from  the  foundation  of  the  paper 
an  agitation  of  a  kind  as  yet  unknown  had  begun  in  the  North- 
west. Some  clergymen  early  in  1831  wrote  letters  to  the 
Liberator,  or  rushed  into  print  in  the  local  papers,  to  the 
amazement  of  all  and  to  the  disgust  of  most  quiet-minded, 
conservative  men.  Then,  after  the  moral  indignation  of  the 
new  reformers  had  expressed  itself  in  condemnation  of  slave- 
holding  on  religious  grounds,  their  practical  natures  led  them 
to  fall  foul  of  the  only  movement  wherein  negro  philanthropy 
had  at  the  time  any  outlet,  namely,  colonization.  As  early  as 
1831  the  free  blacks  of  Cincinnati,  Columbus,  and  other  places 


I O  A  NTI-SLA  VER  Y  BEGINNINGS. 

in  Ohio  had  been  protesting  against  the  project ; l  and  this  cir- 
cumstance, joined  with  the  relentless  logic  of  the  Liberator,  at 
once  led  anti-slavery  men  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  coloniza- 
tion was  not  in  reality  a  scheme  to  benefit  the  negroes,  even 
the  freed  men,  but  simply  to  get  rid  of  them.  The  negroes 
themselves  might  have  protested  against  colonization  until  the 
end  of  time,  without  attracting  any  notice ;  but  this  attack  from 
a  new  quarter  aroused  the  liveliest  indignation.  Controversy 
immediately  began,  and  after  1832  a  war  of  biblical  texts  broke 
out  in  Ohio,  and  to  a  much  less  extent  in  Indiana  and  Michigan. 
Nowhere  was  the  attack  upon  colonization  more  active  than  in 
Western  Reserve  College,  from  which,  until  the  death  of  its 
anti-slavery  president,  C.  B.  Storrs,  and  the  subsequent  de- 
parture of  the  anti-slavery  professors,  Elizur  Wright,  Jr.,  and 
Beriah  Green,  there  poured  forth  a  constant  succession  of 
lectures,  sermons,  pamphlets,  newspaper  articles,  and  letters. 

Organization  began  almost  simultaneously  with  the  movement 
in  the  East.  As  early  as  the  fall  of  1832  an  anti-slavery  society 
was  projected  in  Western  Reserve  College ;  but  the  first  actual 
organization  on  record  was  that  of  the  Tallmadge  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  founded  April  10,  1833,  by  thirty-two  persons  under 
the  leadership  of  two  clergymen.2  After  this  speedily  fol- 
lowed the  Paint  Valley  Abolition  Society  under  the  lead  of 
Rev.  Samuel  Crothers,  the  Gustavus  Anti-Slavery  Society,  the 
Western  Reserve  College  Anti-Slavery  Society,  and  others, 
until  by  the  end  of  1833  there  were  as  many  as  seven  or  eight.3 

1  Liberator,  July  30,  Sept.  10,  1831  ;  Jan.  28,  1832. 

2  General  William  Birney,  in  his  life  of  his  father  (p.  164  seq?),  shows  that 
several  old  societies  dating  from  the  emancipation  movement  were  still  in 
existence  at  Ripley  in  Monroe  County,  at  Mt.  Pleasant,  West  Union,  Zanes- 
ville,  and  Columbiana,  most  of  which  in  the  years  following  1833  joined  in 
the  new  movement.      They  were,  it   seems,  in   a  state  of  inaction  after 
1828-29,  and  played  no  formative  part  in  the  later  organization.     Indeed, 
they  seem  hardly  to  have  been  known,  although  signs  of  them  appear  from 
time  to  time.     For  a  mention  of  the  Putnam  Society,  see  Liberator,  Aug.  17, 

1833,  P-  131- 

*  From  the  Liberator,  Sept.  7,  1833,  we  learn  that  there  existed  at  this 
time  a  State  organization  of  "  abolition  societies  " ;  but  it  seems  to  have  had 
no  influence  on  later  events.  The  history  of  these  societies  is  very  obscure. 


THE  FIRST  SOCIETIES.  II 

The  relation  of  this  movement  to  that  in  the  East  was  shown 
when,  on  December  4,  1832,  the  American  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety was  formed  at  Philadelphia,  at  a  convention  presided 
over  by  Beriah  Green,  of  Western  Reserve  College.  Yet  the 
only  other  Western  members  present  were  Elizur  Wright,  Jr., 
Rev.  Samuel  Crothers,  J.  M.  Stirling  of  Cuyahoga  County, 
and  the  Sutliff  brothers  of  Ashtabula  County:  no  one  came 
from  any  State  west  of  Ohio,  nor  were  any  managers  appointed 
for  any  other  Northwestern  State,  —  facts  clearly  indicating  how 
far  Ohio  was  at  this  time  in  advance  of  its  neighbors  in  anti- 
slavery  sentiment. 

So  far  the  movement  had  met  no  opposition  other  than 
colonizationist  criticism;  but  in  the  year  1834  a  conflict 
occurred  which  had  far-reaching  effects.  Lane  Seminary,  a 
theological  school  at  Cincinnati  under  the  presidency  of  Lyman 
Beecher,  was  the  leading  institution  of  its  kind  in  the  Northwest. 
Theodore  D.  Weld,  one  of  the  instructors,  a  man  whom  Dr. 
Beecher  called  "  eloquent  as  an  angel  and  powerful  as  thun- 
der," became  interested  in  anti-slavery  matters,  and  at  the 
formation  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  was  appointed 
a  manager  for  that  body.  In  the  following  spring  the  issue 
between  colonization  and  abolition  came  up  sharply  in  the 
Seminary,  and  to  settle  the  question  a  two  days'  debate  was 
held.  Although  a  majority  of  the  students  came  from  th< 
South,  Mr.  Weld's  eloquence  and  the  testimony  of  an  eman- 
cipated slave  carried  the  day  in  favor  of  the  new  movement, 
and  with  the  utmost  enthusiasm  an  anti-slavery  society  for 
active  agitation  was  organized  on  the  spot.  Turning  their 
hands  to  the  nearest  work,  some  members  began  to  aid  free 
blacks  in  Cincinnati ;  others  went  on  lecturing  tours  in  the  sur- 
rounding country,  or  appeared  in  the  East  as  delegates  to  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Meeting.  In  August,  however,  an  un- 
expected blow  fell  upon  the  new  society ;  the  trustees,  in  the 
absence  of  Dr.  Beecher,  voted  that  anti-slavery  agitation  be- 
ing "  political  in  character,"  was  improper  in  a  theological 
school,  and  that  all  organization,  discussion,  or  even  conversa- 
tion in  public  places  on  the  subject  should  henceforth  be  for- 
bidden. The  Southern  blood  of  the  young  men  of  the  institution 


12  ANTI-SLAVERY  BEGINNINGS. 

revolted  at  such  dictation,  and  under  the  lead  of  Theodore 
Weld  fifty-one  of  the  students  —  two-thirds  of  the  whole  num- 
ber—  instantly  asked  for  dismissal.  Just  at  this  time,  in  the 
woods  of  Lorain  County,  Rev.  John  Shipherd  was  founding 
"  Oberlin  Collegiate  Institute "  as  an  evangelical  anti-slavery 
institution,  under  the  presidency  of  Rev.  Asa  Mahan,  with 
Charles  G.  Finney,  already  noted  as  a  revivalist,  as  a  professor. 
Here  most  of  the  seceders  found  a  refuge  ;  and,  when  Western 
Reserve  College  lost  its  anti-slavery  professors,  Oberlin,  led  by 
its  vigorous  faculty  and  inspired  by  the  accession  of  the  Lane 
Seminary  students,  soon  became  the  centre  of  religious  anti- 
slavery  propagandism  in  Ohio,  and  in  fact  in  the  whole 
Northwest.1 

This  Lane  Seminary  incident  made  a  profound  impression 
upon  public  sentiment.  It  was  the  first  action  in  the  North- 
west which  looked  like  persecution,  and  as  such  it  thrilled  all 
anti-slavery  workers  with  a  new  sense  of  the  importance  of 
their  cause;  yet  still  more  it  emphasized  what  as  yet  aboli- 
tionists had  hardly  realized,  the  supreme  indifference  which 
many  deeply  religious  men  felt  toward  slavery.  The  stir  which 
it  had  created  was  not  soon  allowed  to  die  down;  for  some 
of  the  seceders,  burning  with  a  sense  of  their  wrongs,  and  not 
content  to  settle  quietly  at  Oberlin,  began  an  active  anti-slavery 
agitation.  H.  B.  Stanton,  J.  A.  Thome,  M.  R.  Robinson,  and, 
most  eloquent  of  all,  Theodore  D.  Weld,  may  fairly  be  said  to 
have  done  more  to  advance  the  anti-slavery  movement  in  Ohio 
than  any  other  body  of  men.  From  town  to  town  they  went 
preaching,  lecturing,  talking;  in  churches,  in  school-houses 
when  churches  were  shut  to  them,  in  private  houses,  barns,  or, 
as  a  last  resort,  in  the  open  air ;  to  audiences  large  or  small, 
friendly  or  contemptuous.  Not  content  with  mere  denuncia- 
tion, they  tried  in  every  town  to  found  an  anti-slavery  society 
and  to  start  anti-slavery  petitions ;  and  thus  they  prepared  the 
way  for  the  growth  of  a  general  anti-slavery  feeling.  In  no 

1  For  the  Lane  Seminary  affair  and  its  connection  with  Oberlin,  see  J. 
H.  Fairchild,  Oberlin  Colony  and  College,  50-77  ;  L.  Tappan,  Life  of  Arthur 
Tappan,  229-242  ;  Asa  Mahan,  Autobiography.  There  is  also  an  account  in 
Henry  Wilson,  Slave  Power.  I.,  ch.  xix. 


THE  LANE  SEMINARY  AFFAIR.  13 

part  of  Ohio  did  the  lecturing  of  Mr.  Weld  make  a  deeper  im- 
pression than  on  the  Western  Reserve,  a  region  more  like  the 
New  England  of  the  preceding  century  than  was  the  original 
New  England  itself  in  1835.  There  the  Puritan  element  proved 
such  fertile  ground  for  the  sowing  of  abolition  doctrine,  that, 
after  Weld's  tour  in  1835-36,  popular  sentiment  became  anti- 
slavery  with  a  nearness  to  unanimity  probably  unequalled  in 
any  similar  area  in  the  United  States.  When,  after  a  year's 
campaign,  most  of  the  young  agitators  settled  down  as  clergy- 
men, or  turned  Eastward,  their  work  had  been  well  done 
in  Ohio ;  but  Michigan  and  Indiana  had  experienced  little  of 
the  impetus,  and  Illinois  and  the  outlying  Territories  none  at 
all.  In  view  of  the  results  attained  in  Ohio,  where,  until  1830, 
popular  sentiment  had  been  no  farther  advanced  than  in  its 
Western  neighbors,  it  seems  possible  that,  had  Weld,  Stanton, 
Thome,  and  the  rest  extended  their  work,  those  other  States 
might  have  developed  an  anti-slavery  sentiment  commensurate 
with  that  of  Ohio. 

After  1834-35,  anti-slavery  societies  gradually  overspread  the 
Northwest,  their  aims  for  the  most  part  moral  and  religious, 
and  their  activity  still  confined  to  protests  against  slavery  rather 
than  to  aggressive  attacks  upon  it.  A  typical  plan  of  action 
-  is  that  of  the  Ohio  State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  as  stated  by  J.  G. 
Birney  in  1835:  "We  shall  seek  to  effect  the  destruction  of 
slavery,  not  by  exciting  discontent  in  the  minds  of  the  slaves  — 
not  by  the  physical  force  of  the  free  States,  not  by  the  interfer- 
ence of  Congress  with  State  Rights ;  but  ...  by  ceaseless  pro- 
clamation of  the  truth  upon  the  whole  subject,  by  urging  upon 
slave-holders  and  the  whole  community  the  flagrant  enormity  of 
slavery  as  a  sin  against  God  and  man,  by  demonstrating  the  safety 
of  immediate  abolition,  by  presenting  facts,  ...  by  correcting 
the  public  sentiment  of  the  free  States.  We  shall  absolve  our- 
selves from  political  responsibility  by  petitioning  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  wherever  it  exercises  consti- 
tutional jurisdiction."  1 

In  Ohio  the  number  of  societies  increased  from  a  dozen  or 
more  in  1834,  to  over  three  hundred  in  1838,  and  to  a  consider- 
1  Liberator,  May  9,  1835. 


1 4  ANTI-SLA  VER  Y  BEGINNINGS. 

ably  greater  number  in  1840.  After  that  year  the  anti-slavery 
sentiment  of  Ohio  took  a  new  direction,  and  the  societies  tended 
to  disappear;  yet  many  continued,  particularly  on  the  Western 
Reserve,  until  the  Civil  War.  In  Indiana  the  first  societies  did 
not  appear  until  1836,  and  their  growth  was  slow.  In  1838  only 
eight  reported  to  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society ;  nor  was  it 
until  the  end  of  1839  and  the  beginning  of  1840  that  the  ener- 
getic but  single-handed  work  of  Arnold  Buffum  succeeded  in 
causing  a  marked  increase.  The  names  of  only  a  score  of 
these  societies  are  known,  and  in  all  probability  most  of  them 
were  ephemeral.  It  is  certain  that  in  Indiana  anti-slavery  senti- 
ment was  less  organized  and  feebler  than  in  any  other  of  the 
Northwestern  States  except  Iowa:  this  may  be  accounted  for 
by  the  comparatively  small  proportion  of  Northern-born  set- 
tlers, and  by  the  lack  of  agitation,  of  which,  except  at  rare 
intervals,  Indiana  had  little  experience. 

In  Michigan  societies  were  formed  in  1834,  and  by  the  spring 
of  1838  nineteen  were  reported.  After  this  time,  as  the  agi- 
tation went  on,  the  number  must  have  increased  rapidly, 
although  we  have  no  full  statistics.  The  centre  of  the  move- 
ment was  in  Lenawee  County,  in  which  alone,  in  1839,  there 
were  fifteen  societies.  Illinois's  first  society  was  that  of  Putnam 
County,  formed  in  1835.  By  1838  thirteen  had  reported  to  the 
National  Anti-Slavery  Convention,  a  number  which  must  have 
been  very  greatly  increased  by  1840.  They  were  scattered  over 
the  northern  and  northwestern  parts  of  the  State,  the  strongest 
region  being  the  seven  or  eight  northeastern  counties,  which 
stood  in  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  State  much  as  the  Western 
Reserve  did  to  Ohio.  In  Wisconsin  and  Iowa  at  this  time 
scarcely  any  attention  was  given  to  anti-slavery  agitation ;  it 
was  not  until  1840-41,  when  elsewhere  in  the  country  the 
formation  of  societies  had  practically  ceased,  that  a  few  in- 
dividuals in  these  frontier  Territories  began  the  work  of 
organization.1 

As  might  be  expected  from  the  religious  character  of  the 
early  anti-slavery  movement,  church  action  on  the  subject  was 

1  For  statistics  of  anti-slavery  societies  at  this  time,  see  the  annual  reports 
of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  from  1835  to  1838. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  CONTROVERSY.  15 

promptly  invoked  by  zealous  clergymen.  In  1834  individual 
congregations  adopted  resolutions  deploring  slavery  as  an  evil; 
and  later  in  the  year  a  long,  ably  written  declaration  in  favor  of 
immediate  emancipation  was  published,  signed  by  sixteen  Ohio 
clergymen,  nearly  all  Presbyterians.  Within  a  year  from  this 
time  the  subject  was  fairly  placed  before  the  larger  church 
bodies,  where  it  caused  hot  debate.  The  Synod  of  Illinois 
passed  resolutions  condemning  slavery,  at  a  time  when  aboli- 
tionism, properly  so  called,  was  hardly  known  in  the  State. 
Throughout  the  Northwest,  Presbyterian  Synods,  Baptist  Asso- 
ciations, Methodist  Conferences,  and  Friends'  Yearly  Meetings 
were  shaken  out  of  their  customary  composure,  and  by  1838 
the  condition  of  things  in  the  churches  was  suggestive  of  no- 
thing so  much  as  of  civil  war.  All  the  forces  of  conservatism 
united  to  suppress  anti-slavery  discussion  and  to  reject  anti- 
slavery  principles  as  in  any  way  a  suitable  test  for  church 
fellowship  ;  while  from  the  Southern  branches  of  each  denomi- 
nation came  bitter  remonstrances  against  agitation,  with  eager 
and  plausible  defences  of  the  institution  quoted  from  the  Bible. 
The  anti-slavery  clergymen,  on  their  part,  cried  aloud  and  spared 
not,  including  the  slave-holder,  his  apologist,  and  even  his  fel- 
low-communicant, in  the  same  bitter  condemnation.  Thus  the 
struggle  went  on  with  increasing  violence  until  it  resulted,  in 
several  of  the  Christian  denominations,  in  a  split  on  anti-slavery 
lines.1  In  these  internal  controversies  the  clerical  element, 
hitherto  predominant  in  general  anti-slavery  work,  found  a  field 
of  occupation,  and  tended  to  withdraw  from  the  lead  in  anti- 
slavery  societies ;  leadership  thus  fell  to  laymen,  under  whose 
management  anti-slavery  agitation  in  the  years  after  1838  took 
a  new  trend. 

Thus  the  new  movement  was  started  by  moral  and  religious 
agitation ;  but  without  the  powerful  aid  of  another  factor  it  could 
never  have  made  such  gains  after  1835.  In  its  early  years  in  the 
Northwest  it  made  little  stir  in  the  community  at  large,  but  by 
1835  the  number  of  anti-slavery  societies  had  grown  to  be  so 
considerable,  the  churches  were  so  convulsed,  and  the  outcries 

1  Von  Hoist  has  a  lucid  discussion  of  the  status  of  the  churches  on  slavery 
in  his  Constitutional  History,  II.  226  seq. 


1 6  ANTI-SLA  VER  Y  BEGINNINGS. 

of  the  agitators  were  so  continuous,  that  the  ultra-conservative 
and  the  pro-slavery  elements  of  society  took  alarm,  particularly 
since  the  insurrection  of  Nat  Turner  in  Virginia  in  1831  had 
given  a  fatal  blow  to  negro  philanthropy  in  the  South.  This 
tragedy,  although  entirely  unconnected  with  the  agitation  de- 
scribed above,  had  naturally  given  Southerners  so  great  a  fear 
and  horror  of  abolition,  that  by  1835  it  was  a  settled  conviction 
that  the  one  unpardonable  crime  was  to  tamper  with  the  lot 
of  slaves  or  to  try  to  alter  it  in  any  way  whatever.  The  result 
was  persecution,  the  one  thing  necessary  to  give  the  cause  an 
immense  impulse. 

In  the  autumn  of  1834  mobs  began  to  appear,  but  only  here 
and  there,  and  they  met  with  little  popular  support.  The  next 
year,  however,  some  Kentuckians  caught  Amos  Dresser,  one  of 
the  Lane  Seminary  students,  distributing  abolition  books ;  and 
they  furnished  an  example  for  their  sympathizers  north  of  the 
Ohio  River  by  stripping  and  lashing  him  in  public,  with  threats 
of  worse  treatment  if  he  repeated  his  offence.  After  this,  mob 
violence  became  increasingly  common.  Weld  on  his  journeys 
met  with  uproars,  insults,  and  at  last  with  rotten  eggs  and  filth, 
a  kind  of  treatment  which  resulted  only  in  increasing  his  fervor 
without  in  the  least  restraining  him.  In  the  next  year  it  seemed 
as  if  the  lower  elements  of  society  all  over  the  North  were 
leagued  together  to  suppress  free  speech,  while  respectable 
people  and  municipal  officials  looked  on  with  indifference  or 
with  active  approval.  In  every  part  of  Ohio,  even  on  the 
Western  Reserve,  each  new  society  was  formed  amid  the  crash- 
ing of  stones  against  doors  and  windows,  and  the  hootings  of  a 
mob.  That  all  who  assailed  the  abolitionists  had  any  clear  idea 
why  they  were  doing  it,  is  altogether  unlikely.  Some  of  them 
regarded  the  reformers  as  upsetters  of  society,  deniers  of  the 
Bible,  "  amalgamationists,"  —  in  short,  as  anarchists ;  others 
considered  them  as  emissaries  of  British  enemies  to  Republican 
institutions,  corrupted  by  British  gold ;  1  but  many  others,  no 
doubt,  knew  them  merely  as  unpopular  persons,  and  therefore 
as  fair  marks  for  rotten  eggs  and  decayed  vegetables. 

Missouri  and  Kentucky  now  proceeded  to  eject  from  within 
1  Philanthropist,  April  21,  1837. 


PERSECUTION  AND  PROGRESS.  I? 

their  borders  all  men  suspected  of  abolition  leanings.  From 
Kentucky  came  James  G.  Birney,  largely  influenced  by  Theo- 
dore Weld,  escaping  a  threatened  persecution  only  to  fall  into 
an  actual  one;  for  in  1836  the  office  in  Cincinnati  where  he 
printed  the  Philanthropist,  the  first  Western  anti-slavery  organ, 
was  twice  sacked  and  his  press  destroyed.  From  Missouri  were 
driven  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy,  like  Birney,  the  publisher  of  an  anti- 
slavery  newspaper,  which  he  now  issued  at  Alton,  Illinois  ;  and 
Dr.  David  Nelson,  formerly  an  army  surgeon,  now  an  anti- 
slavery  schoolmaster. 

In  1836  anti-abolition  meetings  in  Cincinnati  and  elsewhere 
served  to  give  some  sort  of  respectability  to  the  attack ;  but  in 
1837  the  more  law-abiding  elements  of  society  were  willing  to 
cease  opposition,  for  the  popular  opponents  of  the  new  move- 
ment had,  by  their  reckless  violence,  overshot  the  mark.  Tar 
and  feathers  were  freely  applied  in  Indiana ;  pistol  shots  were 
used  to  intimidate  in  Ohio ;  and  finally,  in  November  of  that 
year,  mob  rule  culminated  in  Illinois,  where  Lovejoy,  who 
had  refused  to  give  way  to  repeated  attacks,  perished  gun  in 
hand  while  defending  his  printing-office  against  an  armed  mob. 
It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  anti-slavery  movement  flourished 
under  this  persecution  as  never  before.  Men  of  a  Puritan  cast 
of  mind  were  forced  to  think,  and  found  themselves  at  one  with 
the  abolitionists  ;  fair-minded  people,  indignant  at  the  oppres- 
sion of  a  minority,  sided  with  them;  notoriety  seekers  and 
lovers  of  excitement,  fanatics  and  cranks  of  every  sort,  side  by 
side  with  earnest,  devoted  men  and  women,  rushed  into  the  anti- 
slavery  ranks;  and  in  the  track  of  every  mob  societies  sprang 
up  like  mushrooms.  After  1839  outbreaks  of  violence  became 
infrequent,  and  although  in  pro-slavery  sections  of  the  North- 
western States  there  were  occasional  mobs  down  to  the  time  of 
the  Civil  War,  general  persecution  was  at  an  end.  The  aboli- 
tionists had  grown  to  be  too  many  and  too  respectable  to  be 
thus  put  down.1 

1  On  anti-slavery  mobs,  see  Henry  Wilson,  Slave  Power,  I.  ch.  xx,  xxi, 
xxvii ;  LifeofW.  L.  Garrison,  by  his  children  ;  Liberator,  and  Emancipator, 
1 836-39*  passim;  H.  B.  Stanton,  Random  Recollections,  32-5.  Compare, 
however,  W.  Birney,/.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  250  seq. 


1 8  ANTI-SLA  VER  Y  BEGINNINGS. 

Thus  events  from  1835  to  1839  had  caused  the  anti-slavery 
propaganda  to  increase,  but  more  and  more  clearly  had 
brought  into  prominence  the  fact  that  moral  suasion  alone  was 
inadequate  to  effect  the  desired  result.  Moreover,  now  that  the 
clerical  anti-slavery  forces  were  becoming  involved  in  their  sec- 
tarian troubles,  the  laymen,  —  lawyers,  physicians,  farmers,  — 
into  whose  hands  the  management  of  the  cause  came,  tended  to 
look  at  their  work  from  a  more  practical  point  of  view.  Since 
moral  suasion  as  an  agent  to  effect  an  immediate  reform  had  by 
1838  proved  a  failure,  the  American  man  of  affairs  began  to 
think  that,  if  he  could  not  persuade,  he  could  enforce.  The 
time  had  come  for  the  anti-slavery  cause  to  enter  politics. 


CHAPTER   III. 

ABOLITION    IN   WESTERN   POLITICS. 
1836-1839. 

THE  earliest  anti-slavery  societies,  although  depending  for 
success  mainly  on  moral  suasion,  did  not  fail  to  give  attention 
sometimes  to  the  political  duties  of  abolitionists.  In  answer 
to  the  charge  of  the  South  that  they  were  trying  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  States,  they  uniformly  admitted  the  depend- 
ence of  slavery  on  State  law  alone,  and  the  consequent  inabil- 
ity of  Congress  or  the  free  States  to  carry  out  their  desire 
for  immediate  emancipation.  There  remained  two  points  at 
which  the  North  could  attack  slavery,  namely,  the  District  of 
Columbia  and  the  Territories ;  and  accordingly  from  an  early 
date  we  find  resolutions  like  those  of  the  Portage  County 
(Ohio)  Society,  of  November  30,  1834:  "  While  we  believe  that 
we  ought  to  use  all  moral  means  for  the  universal  aboli- 
tion of  slavery,  we  also  hold  that  the  free  States  are  pecu- 
liarly responsible  for  slavery  in  all  Territories  subject  to  the 
legislative  control  of  Congress  ;  and  that  they  are  under  the 
most  special  and  solemn  obligations  to  use  every  means,  moral 
or  political,  to  give  freedom  to  those  of  our  fellow-citizens  now 
held  in  slavery  under  the  laws  of  Congress."  l 

To  induce  Congress  to  take  such  action,  the  societies  re- 
solved, in  the  words  of  the  Ohio  Anti-Slavery  Society  in  1835, 
"  to  absolve  themselves  from  the  political  responsibility  by 
petitioning  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  and  the  slave  trade 
wherever  it  exercises  constitutional  jurisdiction  "  ;  and  the  re- 
sult was  a  steady  stream  of  petitions  from  Ohio,  Michigan,  and 
1  Emancipator,  Dec.  23,  1834. 


20  ABOLITION  IN  WESTERN  POLITICS. 

later  from  Indiana  and  Illinois.  Of  the  strenuous  Congressional 
struggle  over  the  question  of  their  reception,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  speak  here,  except  to  say  that  it  played  a  considerable  part 
in  increasing  anti-slavery  interest  in  the  Northwest  during  the 
years  1836-42,  and  furnished  to  the  later  political  anti-slavery 
struggle  two  men,  Thomas  Morris  and  Joshua  R.  Giddings, 
both  of  whom  took  distinct  anti-slavery  ground  in  regard  to 
petitions.  Another  stream  of  petitions  directed  to  several  of 
the  Western  State  legislatures,  asking  for  the  repeal  of  the  Black 
Laws,  fared  little  or  no  better  than  did  the  national  petitions 
at  Washington,  except  that  none  of  the  legislatures  ventured 
to  adopt  a  "  gag-rule."  Finding  petition  an  effective  method  of 
agitation,  the  societies  kept  it  up  with  vigor,  and  as  their  num- 
bers increased  greatly  during  the  years  of  persecution,  so  the 
size  and  number  of  the  petitions  increased,  until  men  willing  to 
present  them,  like  John  Quincy  Adams,  Giddings,  and  Morris, 
found  themselves  involved  in  a  heavy  task. 

In  the  Northwestern  State  legislatures,  where  the  Southern- 
born  element  was  preponderant,  we  find  at  this  time  a  series  of 
remarkable  legislative  acts  called  forth  by  the  continual  influx 
of  these  petitions.  Even  in  Michigan,  where  the  population 
was  mainly  from  the  Eastern  States,  and  where  there  were  no 
severe  Black  Laws,  a  conservative  spirit  prevailed,  and  in  1838 
the  legislature  refused  to  consider  a  proposition  to  secure  the 
right  of  jury  trial  to  fugitive  slaves,1  and  declared  it  "  unneces- 
sary and  inexpedient"  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  power 
of  Congress  over  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the 
Territories,  and  over  the  interstate  slave  trade.  In  Illinois,  the 
legislature  in  1837  adopted  a  long  series  of  resolutions  to  the  fol- 
lowing general  effect:  It  ''fully  appreciated  and  shared  the 
feelings  of  alarm  caused  by  the  misguided  abolitionists,  whose 
end,  even  if  attained  peaceably,  would  bring  disaster."  Though 
it  deplored  the  existence  of  slavery,  it  believed  that  the  general 
government  had  no  power  to  free  the  slaves,  and  it  therefore 
resolved  (i)  That  it  deplored  abolition  societies  and  considered 
that  they  did  more  harm  than  good ;  (2)  "  That  the  right  of 
property  in  slaves  could  not  be  interfered  with  by  the  general 
1  Philanthropist,  Feb.  13,  1838. 


ANTI-ABOLITION  LEGISLA  TION.  2 1 

government  or  any  power  outside  the  separate  slave-holding 
States,"  and  that  "abolition  in  the  District  of  Columbia  would 
be  highly  inexpedient  and  injudicious."  1  Two  years  later  the 
Indiana  legislature  adopted  a  somewhat  similar  vote :  "  Resolved, 
That  any  interference  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  slave- 
holding  States — either  by  Congress  or  the  State  legislatures  — 
is  contrary  to  the  compact  by  which  those  States  became  mem- 
bers of  the  Union,  and  that  any  such  interference  is  highly 
reprehensible,  unpatriotic,  and  injurious  to  the  peace  and  sta- 
bility of  the  Union  of  the  States."2  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
both  these  sets  of  resolutions  asserted  triumphantly  what  no 
abolitionist  at  that  time  denied :  that  Congress  had  no  power 
over  slavery  in  the  States. 

In  Ohio  the  first  legislative  expression  on  the  subject  of 
negroes  after  1831  was  a  report  of  a  select  committee,  in  1832, 
on  the  condition  of  the  free  blacks.  The  language  used  gives 
an  idea  of  the  public  attitude  toward  that  unfortunate  class, 
which  the  committee  considered  to  form  a  "  distinct  and  de- 
graded caste  forever  excluded  by  the  fiat  of  society  and  the 
laws  of  the  land  from  all  hopes  of  equality  in  social  intercourse 
and  political  privileges,"  and  "  a  blotch  upon  the  body  politic." 
The  committee  concluded  that  no  legislation  could  improve 
their  condition.3  Two  years  later  petitioning  began,  and  in 
1834  appeared  the  first  of  a  series  of  reports  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee  adverse  to  the  petitions  for  the  repeal  of  the  Black 
Laws.  A  second  adverse  report  was  rendered  in  1835,  and 
another  in  1837.  In  l836  a  motion  made  in  the  Senate  to  re- 
peal the  Black  Laws  was  rejected,  33  to  I,  the  mover,  Leicester 
King,  giving  the  only  affirmative  vote.  In  1838  some  petitions 
were  referred  to  a  friendly  select  committee,  who  reported 
strongly  through  the  same  Mr.  King  in  favor  of  the  complete 
repeal  of  all  laws  discriminating  on  account  of  color;  but  the 
bill  thereupon  introduced  was  killed  by  postponement.  In 
this  year  petitions  asking  for  a  legislative  protest  against  the 
Congressional  "  gag-rule  "  were  referred  to  a  select  committee, 
headed  by  B.  F.  Wade ;  they  received  a  strong  favorable  report, 

1  Liberator,  May  19,  1837.  a  Philanthropist,  Jan.  22,  1839. 

8  Liberator,  Feb.  4,  1832. 


22  ABOLITION  IN  WESTERN  POLITICS. 

but  a  resolution  introduced  by  the  chairman  was  indefinitely 
postponed. 

In  the  next  year,  1839,  the  Ohio  legislature  proceeded  to 
surpass  Indiana  and  Illinois  in  its  anxiety  to  please  the  slave- 
holding  States.  On  January  12  a  series  of  resolutions  passed 
the  House,  to  the  following  general  effect  :  — 

1.  Congress  has  no  jurisdiction  over  slavery  in  the  States. 

2.  Agitation  against  slavery  is  attended  with  no  good  results. 

3.  The  schemes  of  abolitionists  are  wild  and  delusive  and  tend 
to  disrupt  the  Union. 

4.  Any  attempt  by  Congress  to  interfere  with  slavery  is  in 
violation  of  the  Constitution. 

5.  The  repeal  of  the  Black  Laws  is  impolitic  and  inexpedient. 

6.  "  That  the  blacks   and   mulattoes  who  may  be   residents 
within  this  State  have  no  constitutional  right  to  present  their 
petitions  to    the   general   Assembly   for   any  purpose   whatso- 
ever." 1 

This  measure  was  followed  by  one  even  more  galling  to  the 
abolitionists.  In  the  middle  of  January  arrived  two  commis- 
sioners from  the  Kentucky  legislature,  Morehead,  a  Whig,  and 
Speed-Smith,  a  Democrat,  charged  with  the  duty  of  asking 
Ohio  for  a  fugitive-slave  law  to  assist  Kentucky  masters  in  re- 
claiming those  slaves  whom  the  rapidly  growing  Underground 
Railway  kept  transporting  in  increasing  numbers.  On  Febru- 
ary 12  the  request  of  the  commissioners,  sent  to  the  legislature 
by  the  governor,  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  with 
favorable  instructions ;  and  a  bill  framed  to  suit  the  Kentuckians 
passed  the  House,  54-15,  on  February  19.  In  the  Senate,  B. 
F.  Wade  made  a  vigorous  fight,  delivering  a  speech  which  was 
printed  in  anti-slavery  papers  all  over  the  country;  but  the! 
bill  passed,  26-10,  on  February  22,  and  thus  became  law.  A 
public  dinner  was  given  to  the  commissioners,  who,  after  the  fes- . 
tivities,  finally  returned  home,  in  March,  to  report  their  success. 
The  main  points  of  the  bill  were,  that  a  pursuer  of  a  fugitive 
slave  could  upon  affidavit  have  a  warrant  made  out ;  and  that 
upon  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of  a  justice  of  the  peace,  the 
"  person  seized  "  should  be  returned  to  the  State  whence  he  had 
1  Emancipator^  Feb.  7,  1839. 


EARLY  ANTI-SLAVERY  LEGISLATORS.  23 

fled ;  in  case  the  agent  could  not  swear  to  the  fugitive's  iden- 
tity, the  latter  was  to  be  committed  to  jail  to  await  trial ;  any 
person  hindering  a  sheriff  or  an  agent,  or  assisting  a  fugitive, 
was  to  be  fined  not  over  five  hundred  dollars.1 

Since  abolition  efforts  had  gained  from  the  South  nothing 
but  abuse,  from  Congress  only  the  "  gag-rule,"  and  from  the 
North  only  mobs  and  more  stringent  anti-negro  laws,  it  was 
evident  that  moral  suasion  and  petitioning  were  inadequate. 
The  possibility  and  desirability  of  political  action  at  the  polls 
were  thus  suggested  by  numerous  considerations:  rigid  reli- 
gious convictions  called  for  anti-slavery  protest  by  voting; 
expediency  saw  in  such  action  a  way  to  impress  obdurate  poli- 
ticians ;  impatience  expected  in  this  course  a  shorter  road  to 
abolition  than  through  mere  moral  protest;  and  anti-slavery 
men  of  all  kinds  realized  from  the  effectiveness  of  the  few 
abolitionists  in  public  life  how  much  the  cause  might  gain  by 
having  representatives  in  State  and  national  legislatures. 

Four  men  of  the  Northwest  had  produced  a  profound  effect 
upon  anti-slavery  sentiment.  Leicester  King,  a  Whig  lawyer 
and  judge,  active  in  philanthropy  of  all  kinds,  and  president  of 
the  Ohio  Anti-Slavery  Society,  sat  in  the  Ohio  Senate  from 
1833  to  1838,  for  the  district  comprising  the  eastern  end  of  the 
Western  Reserve.  Throughout  his  term  he  was  a  consistent 
worker  for  anti-slavery  ends.  B.  F.  Wade,  of  Ashtabula  County, 
on  the  Reserve,  a  self-made  lawyer,  in  1833  for  a  time  a  member 
of  the  local  Anti-Slavery  Society,  served  from  1835  to  1839  in  N 
the  State  Senate.  His  action  during  his  term  of  office,  and 
especially  his  speech  in  1839  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill, 
raised  him  to  a  high  position  in  the  esteem  of  Ohio  abolitionists. 
Joshua  R.  Giddings,  at  one  time  Wade's  law  partner,  was  in  1838 
elected  to  Congress  as  a  Whig  from  the  Western  Reserve.  He 
was  one  of  Theodore  D.  Weld's  converts,  and  in  1836  had 
served  as  one  of  the  local  managers  of  the  Ohio  Anti-Slavery 
Society.  No  sooner  had  Giddings  taken  his  seat  in  Congress 
in  1839  than  he  placed  himself  beside  John  Quincy  Adams  as  a 
consistent  opponent  of  the  "  gag-rule  "  ;  and  soon  made  himself 
the  abolitionist  champion  in  the  House. 

1  For  this  fugitive  slave  law,  see  Philanthropist,  Jan.  22-March  26,  1839. 


24  ABOLITION  IN   WESTERN  POLITICS. 

More  impressive,  probably,  to  the  Ohio  mind  than  any  of  the 
foregoing  was  Thomas  Morris,  the  first  abolition  senator  of  the 
United  States.  He  was  born  of  New  England  ancestry  in  Penn- 
sylvania in  1778,  and  moved  into  Ohio  when  most  of  the  State 
was  still  a  wilderness.  Working  with  head  and  hands  like  many 
another  poor  frontier  boy,  he  made  a  living,  gained  a  frag- 
mentary education,  read  law,  and  worked  his  way  up  from  the 
very  bottom  to  a  considerable  practice.  Entering  politics 
early,  he  served  from  1806  to  1832  in  the  legislature,  and  later 
was  chosen  to  the  United  States  Senate,  where  he  took  his  seat 
in  the  session  of  1833-34.  Up  to  this  time  Morris  had  been  a 
Jeffersonian  Democrat,  a  rather  rugged  speaker,  but  a  hard 
worker,  a  clear  thinker,  and  a  reliable  party  man.  He  had  shown 
no  signs  whatever  of  being  in  advance  of  his  constituents  on 
the  slavery  question,  nor  did  he  in  the  Senate  say  anything  on 
the  topic  during  the  first  half  of  his  term,  although  petitions 
kept  coming  in,  which  his  Whig  colleague,  Thomas  Ewing, 
presented  from  time  to  time.  In  1836,  however,  he  became 
acquainted  with  J.  G.  Birney,  who  had  just  removed  to  Ohio 
and  was  publishing  the  Philanthropist ;  and  there  is  a  strong 
probability  that  Birney's  logic  opened  Morris's  eyes.  At  any 
rate,  he  suddenly  began  to  take  part  in  affairs  in  the  Senate,  of 
which  he  had  hitherto  been  a  silent  member  ;  he  introduced 
abolition  petitions,  spoke  in  favor  of  the  right  to  present  them, 
and  condemned  on  anti-slavery  grounds  the  new  constitution  of 
Arkansas  and  the  proposed  annexation  of  Texas.  In  Novem- 
ber, 1836,  he  still  more  clearly  showed  his  sympathies  by 
making  a  speech  at  a  meeting  of  the  Clermont  County  Anti- 
Slavery  Society;  but  it  was  not  until  1838  that  he  attracted 
general  attention.  In  that  year,  on  Calhoun's  introduction  of 
certain  resolutions  touching  the  constitutional  status  of  slavery, 
Morris  entered  the  lists  with  an  alternative  series  of  resolutions, 
which  he  upheld  at  length,  incidentally  defending  the  rights  of 
free  speech  and  petition,  and  the  cause  of  the  abolitionists. 

This  speech  produced  an  instant  effect;  every  anti-slavery 
paper  in  the  country  rejoiced,  and  the  rapidly  growing  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  of  Ohio  in  particular  prided  itself  upon  pos- 
sessing such  a  representative;  but  the  old  parties  scented 


THE  FIRST  ABOLITIONIST  SENATOR.  2$ 

mischief;  and  the  Whigs,  eager  to  fasten  the  odium  of  "  aboli- 
tionism "  upon  the  Democratic  party,  proceeded  to  pass 
resolutions  in  their  State  Convention  censuring  Morris  as 
misrepresenting  the  State.  He  replied  in  a  letter  as  follows :  — 

"  I  have  opposed  and  voted  against  the  further  extension  of 
slavery  in  every  case  in  which  I  was  permitted  to  do  so  by  the 
Constitution.  The  Whig  convention  most  undoubtedly  have 
viewed  slavery  with  a  very  favorable  eye  and  felt  willing  for  its 
extension  into  every  State  in  the  Union.  ...  I  have  opposed 
the  slave  trade  between  the  different  States  and  with  the  Re- 
public of  Texas.  The  Whig  convention  probably  thought  this 
trade  an  honest  mode  of  turning  a  penny.  ...  I  have  con- 
tended that  all  men  were  born  equally  free  and  independent, 
and  have  an  indisputable  right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness.  In  this  particular  I  have  no  doubt  I  am  entirely  an- 
tipode  to  the  Whig  convention."  1 

In  November,  1838,  the  Democrats  in  the  Ohio  Legislature, 
with  whom  lay  the  power  to  elect  Morris's  successor,  addressed 
to  him  three  questions,  on  the  bank,  the  tariff,  and  on  slavery. 
The  first  two  he  answered  according  to  the  party  creed,  but  as 
to  the  third  he  gave  a  full  exposition  of  his  abolition  principles, 
which,  he  claimed,  were  pure  Democratic  doctrine.  The  Demo- 
cratic caucus  thought  otherwise,  and  discarded  him  for  Benjamin 
Tappan.  Morris  felt  this  blow  keenly ;  but  its  only  effect  was 
to  drive  him  still  farther  along  the  abolition  road.  He  had 
already,  in  1838,  written  a  letter  to  the  Liberty  Committee,  who 
were  building  Pennsylvania  Hall  in  Philadelphia ;  now  in  every 
way  he  identified  himself  with  the  movement,  and  in  the  Senate, 
in  the  short  session  of  1838-39,  he  made  the  effort  of  his  life. 
He  had  already  dared  to  encounter  Calhoun ;  now  he  ventured 
to  match  himself  with  Clay,  speaking  at  great  length,  justifying 
himself  and  the  abolitionists,  and  predicting  the  final  extinction 
of  slavery  through  political  action. 

Morris's  "  martyrdom  "  at  the  hands  of  his  party,  as  it  was 
called,  and  this  speech  in  reply  to  Clay,  raised  him  to  the  high- 
est pinnacle  in  the  esteem  of  anti-slavery  men ;   but  upon  the 
public  at   large   the    episode  made  little  impression.      Morris 
1  Philanthropist,  July  24,  1838. 


26  ABOLITION  IN  WESTERN  POLITICS. 

was  a  clear  thinker ;  his  resolutions  on  the  constitutional  posi- 
tion of  slavery  might  have  stood  for  the  basis  of  all  political 
action  from  that  time  until  1860;  his  speech  against  Clay  was 
sound  in  reasoning,  moderate  in  temper,  and  uncompromising 
enough  for  any  one.  He  was  not,  however,  an  impressive 
speaker,  for  his  delivery  was  poor  and  his  style  often  heavy; 
and  he  failed  to  gain  due  recognition  at  a  time  when  eloquence 
was  thought  indispensable  for  a  leading  public  man.1 

1  See  B.  F.  Morris,  Life  of  Thomas  Morris. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   THIRD   PARTY. 
1836-1840. 

ONE  of  the  first  attempts  to  define  the  political  duties  of 
abolitionists  was  made  by  Birney  in  the  Philanthropist  of  Sep- 
tember 23,  1836,  when  he  declared  that  there  was  not  much  to 
choose  between  the  two  candidates  for  the  Presidency,  Harrison 
and  Van  Buren.  "  If  abolitionists  unite  themselves  to  either  of 
the  existing  parties  they  will  weaken  their  influence.  Let  our 
votes  be  given,  where  we  can  vote  at  all,  to  the  most  worthy 
without  partisan  distinction."  A  few  days  later  the  Philan- 
thropist gave  more  specific  advice,  by  suggesting  that  aboli- 
tionists ought  not  to  vote  for  Mr.  Storer,  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  Congress,  who  was  a  declared  opponent  of  abo- 
lition in  the  District  of  Columbia.1  If,  as  asserted  at  the  time, 
this  advice  turned  the  scale  against  Storer,  it  was  the  first  politi- 
cal success  attained  by  abolitionists  in  the  Northwest. 

At  about  the  same  time  anti-slavery  men  in  the  northern  sec- 
tion of  the  State  were  considering  the  same  question.  The 
Columbiana  County  Anti-Slavery  Society  voted,  on  October  24, 
1836,  "  not  to  aid  in  elevating  to  office  any  one  who  gives 
reason  to  suspect  that  he  would  deprive  us  of  our  constitutional 
rights  to  publish  throughout  the  land  our  opinions."2  This 
was  aimed  at  sympathizers  with  mobs.  In  March,  1837, 
there  appeared  in  the  Philanthropist  a  call  for  abolitionists 
to  oppose  the  Democratic  candidates  for  city  offices,  because 

1  Philanthropist,  Oct.  28,  1836;  W.  Birney,  J.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times, 
232. 

2  Philanthropist,  Nov.  18,  1836. 


28  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

Van  Buren,  the  head  of  that  party,  was  pledged  not  to  allow  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  "  The  success 
of  our  principles  demands  of  us,"  it  said,  "  that  discarding  every 
name  of  party,  we  vote  for  men  of  principle,  the  friends  of 
Liberty,  of  Law,  of  Order.  If  such  cannot  be  found  let  us  not 
vote  at  all.  In  this  way  and  in  this  alone  shall  we  be  felt." 
Whether  any  results  followed  from  this  appeal  is  not  known ; 
but  it  became  manifest,  when  the  State  Society  met  in  April, 
that  the  question  of  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage  had  grown  in 
importance.  Feeling  that  an  authoritative  statement  of  opinion 
was  called  for,  the  Society  resolved :  "  That  it  is  time  for  the 
abolitionists  of  Ohio  to  relinquish  all  party  attachments  and  act 
with  a  single  view  to  the  supremacy  of  the  law,  the  inviolabil- 
ity of  constitutional  privileges  and  the  rights  of  all " ; l  and  in 
order  to  make  this  resolution  effectual,  it  advised  abolitionists  to 
interrogate  candidates  and  to  vote  for  those  only  who  agreed 
with  their  principles.  In  the  East,  interrogation  of  candidates 
had  already  been  common  for  some  time ;  but  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  until  this  time,  in  Ohio,  the  clerical  element  had 
continued  predominant,  and  had  but  just  begun  to  relinquish 
the  leadership  to  such  men  as  Birney  and  King. 

During  1837  the  outcries  from  the  South,  that  the  abolitionists 
were  forming  a  new  party,  met  with  repeated  denials  from  Ohio 
as  well  as  from  the  East.  T\\&jPhilantkro^ist  said,  on  May  19: 
"  Abolitionists  have  never  organized ;  they  never  will  organ- 
ize as  a  political  party  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  the 
great  object  of  their  desires."  On  September  8,  it  said  that  a 
third  party  for  abolitionists  was  unnecessary  and  inexpedient: 
"  Let  them  attempt  a  regular  political  organization,  and  who 
does  not  see  that  .  .  .  zeal  for  human  rights  would  be  smothered 
in  the  dust  of  party  conflict  ?  .  .  .  We  have  been  thus  explicit, 
not  because  we  apprehend  abolitionists  will  ever  become  so  im- 
prudent as  to  pursue  the  course  animadverted  on,  but  to  con- 
vince our  adversaries  .  .  .  how  impossible  it  is  that  abolitionists, 
men  of  all  politics  and  religions,  should  ever  organize  as  a 
distinct,  regular  and  political  party." 

In  spite  of  these  disclaimers,  however,  the  tide  had  evidently 
1  Emancipator,  Sept.  21,  1837. 


NON-PARTISAN  POLITICAL  ACTION.  2$ 

begun  to  run  toward  politics  and  away  from  Biblical  discussion 
and  moral  work.  Lloydsville,  Belmont,  Hamilton,  Clermont, 
Ashtabula,  and  Geauga  abolitionists  passed  resolutions  not  to 
support  any  but  anti-slavery  men  for  office,  and  to  propound  to 
all  candidates  searching  questions  covering  the  power  of  Con- 
gress over  slavery  and  the  slave-trade,  and  the  position  of  the 
candidate  himself  with  regard  to  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  to  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  to  the  Black  Laws. 
Such  action  led  to  a  dilemma  whenever  both  candidates  were 
unsatisfactory.  Unless  the  abolitionists  chose  to  run  a  separate 
ticket,  they  could  show  disapproval  only  by  refraining  from 
voting  or  by  scattering  their  votes,  both  courses  irritatingly 
impotent,  and  unpractical  except  where  parties  were  nearly 
equal. 

Although  the  abolitionists  still  entirely  failed  to  foresee  the 
outcome,  and  continued  to  disclaim  any  intention  to  form  a  new 
party,  the  Ohio  men,  in  1838,  continued  to  go  farther  toward  a 
political  organization.  The  State  Society,  and  the  county  and 
local  societies,  in  increasing  numbers,  abjured  party  action  and 
demanded  anti-slavery  principles  as  a  prerequisite  for  gaining 
their  support.  The  system  of  questioning  candidates,  which  in 
1837  had  proved  hardly  as  successful  as  had  Been  hoped,  was 
now  resumed  with  the  utmost  vigor  in  most  of  the  Western 
Reserve  and  in  many  «ther  counties  scattered  over  the  State. 
When  Vance  and  Shannon,  the  Whig  and  Democratic  candi- 
dates for  governor,  were  b»th  formally  interrogated  by  the  officials 
of  the  State  Society,  and  refused  to  reply,  an  enthusiast  sug- 
gested L.  P.  Whipple  as  an  independent  anti-slavery  nomination. 
The  proposal  was  instantly  frowned  down.  "  We  are  utterly 
opposed  to  every  measure  that  looks  toward  a  separate  political 
organization,"  said  the  Philanthropist.  "  The  cause  of  anti- 
slavery  belongs  to  all  parties  and  all  sects,  and  we  should  as 
much  regret  to  see  abolitionists  drawing  off  from  the  parties  to 
which  they  belong  as  we  should  to  see  them  leaving  the  churches 
of  which  they  are  members  to  build  up  a  separate  anti-slavery 
church  ...  All  that  can  safely  be  done  in  a  political  way  is  to 
be  done  by  questioning  candidates  .  .  .  We  believe  these  are  the 
sentiments  of  nineteen  twentieths  of  abolitionists  throughout 


30  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE    THIRD  PARTY. 

Ohio." 1  Meanwhile,  in  Indiana  the  State  Anti-Slavery  Society 
passed  resolutions  in  favor  of  political  independence,  and  in 
Michigan  the  questioning  of  candidates  was  actively  prosecuted. 
Evidently  the  abolitionists  were  glad  to  find  some  tangible  way 
of  showing  their  anti-slavery  feelings. 

In  Ohio  special  circumstances  rendered  the  fall  election  of 
1838  interesting;  a  desire  to  secure  the  re-election  of  Thomas 
Morris  to  the  Senate  brought  many  anti-slavery  men  to  the  polls 
with  Democratic  tickets.  Moreover,  just  before  the  election,  an 
event  took  place  which  could  not  have  been  better  calculated 
to  work  against  the  Whigs ;  an  indictment  having  been  brought 
by  a  Kentucky  jury  against  J.  B.  Mahan  for  assisting  a  runaway 
slave,  Governor  Vance,  the  Whig  candidate  for  re-election,  pro- 
ceeded to  arrest  Mahan  and  deliver  him  to  the  Kentucky  au- 
thorities. The  news  of  this,  as  the  Philanthropist  said,  thrilled 
through  Ohio  like  an  electric  shock,  and  wrought  every  abolition- 
ist to  a  high  pitch  of  excitement.  When  the  election  occurred, 
the  Whig  defeat  was  decisive.  Vance,  elected  in  1837  by 
6,000  majority,  was  now  beaten  by  5,000;  and  Whig  members 
of  the  legislature,  and  Congressional  candidates  in  every  section, 
were  either  defeated  or  elected  by  reduced  majorities.  That  this 
result  was  due  entirely  to  abolition  votes,  no  one  seemed  inclined 
to  doubt ;  even  Whig  papers  asserted  it  as  an  undeniable  fact. 
The  Philanthropist  exulted  over  the  first  real  demonstration  of 
abolition  strength,  of  which  the  transfer  of  5,500  votes  on  the 
governorship  seemed  a  fair  measure.  The  result  in  the  legis- 
lature was  universally  ascribed  to  the  popular -desire  to  secure 
the  senatorship  for  Morris  and  to  rebuke  the  Whig  convention 
for  censuring  him.  In  Belmont  County  the  Whigs  stayed  at 
home,  "  from  their  high  respect  for  Morris  "  ;  in  Fayette  County 
from  the  same  cause  the  Whig  majority  dropped  from  500  to  6. 
The  Emancipator,  of  New  York,  estimated  the  change  in  the 
popular  vote  for  the  legislature  as  20,000,  due  to  Morris's 
popularity. 

Besides  their  direct  influence  in  the  election,  the  abolitionists 
had  gained  a  triumph  in  the  choice  of  J.  R.  Giddings  to  Con- 
gress ;  his  nomination  is  said  to  have  been  brought  about  by 
1  Philanthropist,  March  27,  1838. 


FAILURE   OF  QUESTIONING   CANDIDATES.  31 

some  timely  letters  of  J.  G.  Birney  to  the  local  Whig  managers 
on  the  Reserve.1  On  the  whole,  the  election  of  1838  was  an 
intoxicating  draught  for  the  abolitionists  of  Ohio.  The  wide- 
spread reports  of  their  political  doings,  the  congratulations 
heaped  upon  them  by  Eastern  anti-slavery  papers,  and  the  half- 
dazed  admission  of  their  power  by  the  local  Whig  party,  led 
them  to  feel  that  the  liberties  of  the  country  were  now  assured, 
and  that  merely  by  the  questioning  of  candidates  they  had  suc- 
ceeded in  gaining  all  they  could  wish. 

When  the  results  of  this  election  were  tested  in  1839,  the 
political  abolitionists  experienced  nothing  but  perplexity  and 
disappointment.  In  the  first  place,  Thomas  Morris,  to  secure 
whose  re-election  anti-slavery  men  had  voted  the  Democratic 
ticket,  was  thrown  over  by  his  party,  obviously  on  account  of 
those  very  principles  for  which  abolitionists  had  honored  him. 
Then,  in  January,  1839,  came  the  series  of  State  resolutions 
condemning  abolition,  and  in  February,  most  humiliating  of  all, 
the  passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  at  the  request  of  two  Ken- 
tucky slave-holders.  Men  who  had  been  elected  as  opponents 
of  slavery  found  nothing  incongruous  between  their  professions 
in  October,  1838,  and  their  votes  for  these  drastic  measures ;  and 
the  faith  of  Ohio  reformers  in  the  efficacy  of  questioning  candi- 
dates received  a  severe  blow.  Still,  in  default  of  any  better  way 
of  getting  what  they  wanted,  they  were  obliged  to  continue  the 
system,  except  in  cases  where  the  behavior  of  the  candidates 
in  the  legislature  or  elsewhere  rendered  interrogation  super- 
fluous. The  State  Society  said  somewhat  gloomily  in  its  an- 
nual report :  "  We  can  see  no  other  course  for  abolitionists  to 
pursue."2 

On  the  Western  Reserve  so  great  was  the  general  indignation 
against  the  new  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  that  the  local  Whig  con- 
ventions found  it  advisable  to  discard  all  members  of  the 
legislature  who  had  voted  for  the  bill,  and  to  nominate  new  can- 

1  W.  Birney,  J.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times*  341.     General  Birney  sees  his 
father's  influence  in  every  event  of  abolitionist  history.     If  Birney  really 
secured  Giddings*  nomination,  his  diplomacy  has  not  been  recognized  by  other 
writers.     See  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings. 

2  Philanthropist,  June  1 1,  1839. 


32  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

didates.  The  renomination  of  B.  F.  Wade,  who  had  won  the 
approbation  of  anti-slavery  men  by  his  resistance  to  the  bill,  was 
opposed  by  a  large  number  of  local  Whigs;  but  the  anti-slavery 
elements  of  the  party  forced  it  through.  In  Geauga  County, 
where  the  Whig  majority  was  very  large,  the  party  convention 
braved  anti-slavery  wrath  by  selecting  men  of  thoroughly  un- 
satisfactory views ;  and  as  the  Democratic  nominees  were  no 
better,  a  dilemma  presented  itself.  The  Geauga  abolitionists 
solved  it  by  making  an  independent  nomination,  the  first  in  the 
Northwest;  although  the  same  men,  two  years  earlier,  had 
resolved  in  their  county  anti-slavery  society:  "We  will  never 
countenance  the  organization  of  abolitionists  into  a  distinct 
political  body."  l 

When  the  election  of  1839  came,  it  resulted  in  another  Demo- 
cratic victory  even  more  sweeping  than  the  preceding ;  but  the 
abolitionists  could  not  claim,  as  in  1838,  that  they  were  the  sole 
cause ;  for  their  votes  had  been  either  divided  between  the  two 
parties,  or  withheld,  with  no  sort  of  common  action.  The 
Whigs  had  done  nothing  to  gain  their  regard,  nor  had  the 
Democrats  any  claim  to  their  support  after  their  treatment  of 
Morris.  In  Wade's  district  the  disaffection  of  some  of  his  party 
over  his  abolitionism  resulted  in  his  defeat  by  a  very  narrow 
majority.2  In  Indiana  and  Illinois  anti-slavery  men  were  too 
few  and  scattered  to  think  of  independent  action ;  so  that  Michi- 
gan was  the  only  other  Northwestern  State  in  which  the  aboli- 
tionists played  any  considerable  part  in  the  election.  Here  the 
system  of  questioning  was  thoroughly  applied.  In  Jackson 
County  it  resulted  in  the  usual  dilemma ;  whereupon  the  aboli- 
tionists proceeded  to  make  independent  nominations.  In  alarm 
at  this  unseasonable  action,  the  president  and  officers  of  the  State 
Anti-Slavery  Society  felt  called  upon  to  issue  a  manifesto  deny- 
ing any  complicity  in  it  or  sympathy  with  it. 

The  elections  of  1839  taught  once  more  the  lesson  of  the 
futility  of  the  mere  interrogation  of  candidates,  and  showed 

1  Philanthropist,  Oct.  13,  1837. 

2  Emancipator,  Oct.  24,  1839.     In  Geauga  County,  where  the  first  third- 
party  ticket  was  run,  the  vote  stood:  Democratic,  i,439>  Whig,  1,630;  Anti- 
slavery,  432 ;  and  some  300  abstained  from  voting. 


DISSATISFACTION  OF  POLITICAL  ABOLITIONISTS.      33 

also  that  some  abolitionists  were  ready  for  the  next  step — • 
separate  party  action.  Nevertheless,  that  the  body  of  Western  \ 
anti-slavery  men  were  not  prepared  in  1839  for  such  an  inno-' 
vation,  is  shown  conclusively  by  their  action  during  this  year 
and  the  next.  Since  the  spring  of  1839  a  movement  in  favor  of 
a  new  party  had  been  rapidly  taking  shape  in  the  minds  of  a 
few  men.  In  western  New  York,  Myron  Holley,  in  eastern  New 
York  and  in  New  England,  C.  T.  Torrey,  were  agitating  the  same 
question;  and  the  Emancipator,  the  organ  of  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  now  gave  its  support  to  the  new  view. 
The  questions  before  abolitionists  this  year  were  three :  should 
they  vote  at  all ;  if  they  did,  should  they  insist  on  a  full  con- 
fession of  anti-slavery  faith  from  a  candidate ;  and  what  should 
they  do  in  case  there  were  no  fit  nominations  by  either  party? 

In  regard  to  the  first  question,  there  was  little  difference  of 
opinion  in  the  Northwest ;  but  in  the  older  States  it  roused  the 
bitterest  possible  controversy  between  the  practical  anti-slavery 
men  on  one  side,  and  W.  L.  Garrison  and  his  followers  on  the 
other.  The  latter  had  adopted  the  Quaker  doctrine  of  non-resist- 
ance, and  had  carried  it  to  its  logical  result  in  a  sort  of  theoreti- 
cal Christian  anarchism.  So  generally  was  the  duty  of  voting 
taken  for  granted  by  Western  abolitionists  at  this  time,  that  it 
was  seldom  discussed,  and  such  individuals  and  societies  as  did 
mention  the  matter  almost  invariably  went  contrary  to  the 
Garrisonian  position.  The  Lorain  County  (Ohio)  Anti-Slavery 
Society  voted :  "  That  it  is  the  duty  of  abolitionists  to  use  their 
influence  to  secure  the  nomination  for  office  of  men  who  are 
the  friends  of  equal  rights.  That  it  is  their  duty  to  attend  the 
polls  and  vote  for  such  men." a  A  convention  at  Oakland, 
Clinton  County,  Ohio,  on  September  7,  voted :  "  That  all 
abolitionists  who  deem  it  their  privilege  to  go  to  the  polls  are 
bound  by  their  duty  to  God  ...  to  make  their  votes  tell  for 
the  slave."2  The  Illinois  Anti-Slavery  Society  voted  on  Sep- 
tember 25  :  "That  every  abolitionist  who  has  a  right  to  vote  be 
earnestly  entreated  to  lose  no  opportunity  to  carry  his  abolition 
principles  to  the  polls";3  and  again,  on  I^cember  n:  "  We 

1  Emancipator,  July  25,  1839.  2  Liberator,  Nov.  15,  1839. 

8  Philanthropist,  Nov.  26.  1839. 

3 


34  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

regard  the  elective  franchise  as  a  boon  from  the  Great  Author 
of  every  .  .  .  perfect  gift,  .  .  .  and  those  who  neglect  to  use  it  at 
all  as  false  to  the  solemn  trust  committed  to  them."  l  When,  in 
July,  1839,  a  national  anti-slavery  convention  at  Albany  voted, 
"  That  every  abolitionist  who  has  the  right  to  vote  be  earnestly 
entreated  to  use  his  right,"  its  action  met  with  nothing  but  ap- 
proval in  the  Northwest;  nor  did  the  people  in  that  section 
regard  with  much  interest  the  controversy  between  Garrison 
and  his  opponents  over  the  matter. 

Expecting  to  vote  somehow,  the  Northwestern  anti-slavery 
men  faced  the  remaining  two  questions,  that  were  now  forced 
on  them  by  the  approaching  Presidential  election.  Could  an 
abolitionist  vote  for  any  one  but  an  abolitionist?  The  conclu- 
sion toward  which  the  minds  of  hundreds  of  men  were  gradu- 
ally tending  was  that  he  could  not.  In  that  case,  what  was 
to  be  done  if  Van  Buren  were  the  Presidential  candidate  against 
Clay  or  Harrison?  Torrey,  Elizur  Wright,  Holley,  Stanton,  and 
their  followers  felt  that  the  only  solution  of  the  question  lay  in 
the  support  by  abolitionists  of  a  separate  independent  candidate ; 
but  from  this  step  all  save  the  most  radical  recoiled.  During 
the  summer  of  1839  the  pages  of  anti-slavery  papers  were  filled 
with  controversy,  steadily  increasing  in  bitterness  as  the  year 
advanced.  In  the  Northwest  the  extreme  position  of  Holley 
found  as  little  favor  as  did  that  of  Garrison.  Societies  and 
newspapers  had  repeatedly  denied  the  advisability,  or  even  pos- 
sibility, of  an  anti-slavery  political  party;  and  now  in  1839  they 
held  to  the  same  position.  Questioning,  futile  as  it  had  proved, 
seemed  preferable  to  organizing  a  forlorn-hope  party ;  and  even 
the  dismal  prospect  of  two  pro-slavery  Presidential  candidates 
failed  to  convince  abolitionists  of  the  practicability  of  such 
a  mode  of  action.  "Let  us  retire  from  the  contest,"  said  the 
Philanthropist,  "  and  leave  the  dough-faced  politicians  to  fight 
their  own  battles."2 

In  July  an  attempt  to  clear  the  air  was  made  at  a  national 

y      convention  at  Albany,  called  to  discuss  particularly  "  the  ques- 
tions which  relat^to  the  proper  exercise  of  the  suffrage  by 
citizens  of  the  fr^States."     After  a  long  and  animated  debate 
1  Emancipator,  Jan.^2,  1840.  2  April  30,  1839. 


DEBATES  OVER  POLITICAL  DUTIES.  35 

the  assembly  resolved  not  to  vote  for  any  one  not  an  abolition- 
ist, and  to  leave  the  matter  of  nominating  independent  anti- 
slavery  candidates  to  the  discretion  of  anti-slavery  men  in 
different  localities.1  Against  the  first  resolution  the  Philan- 
thropist, speaking  for  the  majority  of  Ohio  anti-slavery  men,  pro- 
tested, as  "  wrong  in  principle  and  inexpedient "  ;  as  demanding 
from  a  candidate  entirely  arbitrary  qualifications,  whereas 
"  requirements  should  be  limited  by  the  constitutional  respon- 
sibilities of  the  office  they  seek "  ;  as  tending  to  confirm  the 
slave-holder  in  his  suspicions  that  abolitionists  had  unconstitu- 
tional designs  ;  and,  lastly,  as  tending  "  to  disfranchise  the  anti- 
slavery  people  of  the  United  States."2  Most  of  the  Ohio 
societies  adopted  this  position,  and  demanded  from  candidates 
only  such  pledges  as  they  could  reasonably  be  required  to 
give.  The  conventions  of  Huron,  Lorain,  Cuyahoga,  Geauga, 
Ashtabula,  Portage,  and  Clinton  counties,  and,  on  September 
II,  a  general  Western  Reserve  convention,  resolved:  "That 
abolitionists  ought  not,  and  we  will  not,  vote  for  any  man  for 
any  legislative  or  executive  office  who  is  not  heartily  opposed 
to  slavery  and  who  will  not  openly  meet  and  honestly  sustain 
all  constitutional  measures  calculated  immediately  to  restore 
to  the  oppressed  their  rights."3  Some  of  these  conventions 
formally  rejected  the  Albany  resolution.  The  Michigan  abo- 
litionists, as  represented  by  the  Michigan  Freeman,  agreed  with 
the  Reserve;  but  in  Illinois  the  extreme  position  met  with  a 
partial  acceptance.  On  September  25  the  State  Anti-Slavery 
Society  voted :  "  That  we  will  neither  vote  for  nor  support 
the  election  of  any  man  .  .  .  who  is  not  in  favor  of  the  imme- 
diate abolition  of  slavery  "  ;4  and,  on  December  4,  a  convention 
at  Canton  resolved :  "  That  while  we  are  averse  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  an  anti-slavery  party  for  political  action,  we  believe  it  to 
be  the  duty  of  all  friendly  to  the  cause  of  human  Liberty  to 
cast  their  votes  for  men  favorable  to  the  abolition  of  slavery."  6 

But  whether  abolitionists  demanded  abolitionism  in  a  candidate 
or  were  satisfied  with  pledges,  the  dilemma  where  there  were 

1  Emancipator,  Aug.  8,  1839.  2  Philanthropist,  Sept.  3,  1839. 

8  Ibid.,  Oct.  8,  1839.  4  Ibid.,  Nov.  26,  1839. 

6  Emancipator,  Jan.  2,  1840. 


36  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

two  unsuitable  candidates  could  not  be  escaped.  Every  month 
the  movement  for  independent  action  grew  stronger,  its  drift 
being  evident  in  such  events  as  the  anti-slavery  nominations  in 
Geauga  County,  Ohio,  and  in  Jackson  County,  Michigan.  On 
October  23,  at  a  special  meeting  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society  at  Cleveland,  the  exciting  political  question  came 
up  for  consideration  by  a  body  of  four  hundred  abolitionists, 
almost  exclusively  from  Ohio.  Two  resolutions  were  offered : 
first,  to  vote  for  no  opponents  of  abolitionism ;  second,  to 
"  neglect  no  opportunity  to  record  their  votes  against  slavery 
when  proper  candidates  in  all  respects  are  put  up  for  office." 
To  the  radical  element  these  resolutions  seemed  absurdly  timid 
and  inconclusive.  Blodgett,  of  Cuyahoga  County,  at  once 
moved  an  amendment  sanctioning  independent  nomination  in 
cases  where  neither  candidate  was  satisfactory  ;  this  was  re- 
jected. Myron  Holley  then  introduced  a  more  radical  resolu- 
tion :  "  That  when  existing  parties  directly  oppose  or  purposely 
overlook  the  rights  of  the  slave  it  is  time  to  form  a  new  political 
party''  concluding  with  the  still  more  daring  proposition  to 
appoint  a  committee  to  nominate  candidates  for  President  and 
Vice-President.  Blodgett  tried  so  to  amend  the  latter  sugges- 
tion that  it  should  authorize  the  calling  of  a  nominating  con- 
vention, "  provided  neither  of  the  existing  candidates  proved 
suitable  " ;  but  after  a  prolonged  and  exciting  debate,  occupying 
nearly  a  whole  day,  the  resolutions  and  amendments  were  all 
rejected,  and  the  attempt  to  turn  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society  into  a  political  party  was  given  up.1 

This  episode  gave  rise  to  violent  recriminations  in  the  East 
between  the  third-party  faction  and  the  Garrisonian  wing,  the 
latter  of  whom  charged  the  former  with  attempting  a  trick.  In 
the  West,  Holley's  attempt  was  generally  condemned.  The 
Oberlin  Evangelist  said :  "  Such  a  measure  will  meet  with  no 
favor,  we  trust,  among  Western  abolitionists."2  The  PJdlanthro- 

1  On  the  Cleveland  Convention,  see  Emancipator,  Nov.    17-24,   1839; 
Liberator,  Nov.  15-22,  1839;  Philanthropist,  Oct.  29~Nov.  19,  1839;  Elizur 
Wright,  Life  of  Myron  Holley,  252  seq. ;  W.  P.  and  F.  J.  Garrison,  Life  of 
W.  L.  Garrison,  II.  314  seq.  ;  W.  Birney,  /.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  348. 

2  Quoted  in  Liberator,  Nov.  29,  1839. 


GENERAL  REJECTION  OF  A   NEW  PARTY.  37 

pist  remarked :  "  To  us  it  seems  unreasonable  to  project  the 
organization  of  a  party  on  the  basis  of  exclusive  attention 
to  any  single  interest,  however  important  " ;  and  pointed  out 
that  the  change  of  the  existing  organization  into  a  political 
party  was  impossible.  "  The  primary  object  of  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society  was  declared  to  be  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  States.  ...  A  political  party  contemplating  as  its  ob- 
ject the  extinction  of  State  slavery  is  manifestly  an  absurdity, 
for  it  can  act  by  no  political  means.  .  .  .  The  attempt  to  con- 
vert our  organization  into  a  political  one  we  regard  as  a  violation 
of  good  faith,  and,  if  persisted  in,  it  must  end  in  division." 1 
The  Anti-Slavery  Society  of  Salem,  Columbiana  County,  Ohio, 
resolved,  that  "we  deprecate  the  foundation  of  a  third  political 
party  as  exceedingly  injudicious,  dangerous  to  the  success  of 
our  enterprise  and  a  violation  of  good  faith."2  The  Niels  Creek 
(Indiana)  Anti-Slavery  Society  resolved,  that  "  we  view  with 
mournful  and  sincere  regret  the  attempt  made  at  the  late  special 
meeting  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  at  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  to  organize  a  distinct  anti-slavery  political  party,  believing 
as  we  do  that  such  a  party  would  prove  injurious  if  not  fatal  to 
the  cause  in  which  abolitionists  are  engaged."  3 

Nevertheless,  the  Philanthropist,  the  Michigan  Freeman,  and  all 
the  societies  in  the  Northwest  could  neither  escape  the  dilemma 
nor  prevent  the.  more  radical  from  acting.  On  November  13, 
a  convention  at  Warsaw,  Genesee  County,  New  York,  led  by 
Myron  Holley,  nominated  J.  G.  Birney,  and  F.  J.  Lemoyne  of 
Pennsylvania,  for  President  and  Vice-President  respectively. 
Birney,  who  had  turned  over  the  Philanthropist  to  Dr.  Gamaliel 
Bailey  in  1838,  and  since  then  had  been  in  New  York,  was  as 
widely  known  and  generally  respected  as  any  abolitionist,  and 
Lemoyne  was  prominent  in  Pennsylvania.  Both  declined  the 
nomination,  Lemoyne  not  seeing  any  necessity  for  a  third  party, 
and  Birney  saying :  "  While  I  agree  with  you  fully  in  the  opinion 
that  the  great  anti-slavery  enterprise  can  never  succeed  without 
independent  nominations,  I  feel  assured  that  the  views  of  aboli- 


1  Philanthropist,  Dec.  10,  1839.  a  Liberator^  Feb.  7,  1840. 

8  Philanthropist,  Feb.  4,  1840. 


38  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

tionists  as  a  body  do  not  enough  harmonize  to  make  such  a 
measure  advisable  now."1 

For  the  time  being  the  third-party  men  seemed  to  have  been 
rebuffed  on  all  sides  ;  but,  as  the  winter  passed,  the  spectacle  of 
Harrison  as  the  Whig  candidate,  opposed  to  Van  Buren,  whose 
renomination  was  certain,  began  to  make  many  who  had  hither- 
to been  lukewarm  feel  that  a  third  party  might  not  be  wholly 
unnecessary.  Letters  from  Western  men  favoring  independent 
action  began  to  appear  from  time  to  time  in  the  Emancipator 
and  the  Philanthropist?'  Dr.  Bailey,  of  the  last-named  paper, 
at  this  time  rather  favored  the  Whigs ;  he  published  some  evi- 
dence to  show  that  Harrison  was  not  pro-slavery,3  and  on  Janu- 
ary 15  wrote  to  J.  R.  Giddings  that  he  thought  a  "  tolerably  fair 
case  might  be  made  out  for  the  General."4  Throughout  the 
winter  of  1840  the  debate  continued,  although  the  first  murmurs 
of  the  "  hard  cider  "  campaign  for  Harrison  were  beginning  to 
distract  the  attention  of  abolitionists.  Early  in  February  ap- 
peared a  call  from  Holley's  county  convention  for  a  "  National 
Third-Party  Anti-Slavery  Convention "  to  meet  at  Albany  on 
April  i,  to  discuss  the  question  of  an  independent  Presidential 
nomination.  The  controversy  grew  hotter.  The  Philanthropist 
printed  long  and  frequent  editorials  condemning  the  new  move- 
ment from  every  point  of  view ;  and  the  Trumbull  County  (Ohio) 
Anti-Slavery  Society  uttered  a  "  Solemn  Protest  against  the  pro- 
posed convention  as  uncalled  for."5  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Bellefontaine  society  resolved  :  "  That  our  righteous  cause  calls 
us  to  come  out  from  among  the  present  political  parties,  and  be 
separated,  that  we  may  get  rid  of  the  unclean  thing  and  escape 
its  plagues."  6  Letters  representing  all  degrees  of  approval  and 
condemnation  poured  in  upon  anti-slavery  newspapers. 

On  April  I,  the  Liberty  convention  at  Albany  met,  without  a 
single  member  from  the  Northwest.  It  nominated  J.  G.  Birney 
and  Thomas  Earle  of  Pennsylvania,  and  thus  forced  the  abolition- 
ists of  Ohio  and  the  Northwest  to  decide  whether  they  would  re- 

1  Philanthropist,  Jan.  21,  1840. 

2  Ibid.,  Jan.  21,  Feb.  25,  April  14,  1840.        8  Ibid.,  Feb.  4,  1840. 
4  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  ofj.  R.  Giddings,  88. 

6  Emancipator,  April  2,  1840.  6  Philanthropist,  April  14,  1840. 


EASTERN  MEN  FORCE   THE  ISSUE.  39 

fuse  to  support  a  thoroughly  anti-slavery  nomination  now  that  it 
was  practically  forced  upon  them.  A  majority  of  anti-slavery 
men  in  the  Northwest  were  without  doubt  Whigs ;  for  among 
the  New  England  and  New  York  elements  of  population,  which 
furnished  the  body  of  that  party,  anti-slavery  principles  natu- 
rally gained  their  earliest  foothold.  To  such  it  was  a  trying 
time;  for  the  "Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too"  craze  was  swelling 
from  week  to  week,  intoxicating  all  with  its  presage  of  victory. 
When  the  prospect  of  demolishing  Van  Buren,  crushing  the  sub- 
treasury,  and  restoring  the  bank  and  the  tariff  loomed  shining 
in  the  near  distance,  it  required  a  painful  effort  to  leave  their 
organization  in  full  career,  and  out  of  conscientious  scruples  to 
vote  for  a  man  nominated  by  a  corporal's  guard  as  a  forlorn 
hope. 

As  the  spring  advanced,  the  machinery  of  abolitionism, 
which,  by  nine  years  of  incessant  work,  privation,  self-sacrifice, 
danger  from  mobs,  and  ridicule  from  friends,  had  been  built 
up  into  what  seemed  a  strong  and  permanent  system,  seemed 
to  crumble  into  atoms.  In  May,  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  a  violent  outbreak  occurred 
between  the  Garrisonian  wing  and  the  third-party  sympathizers. 
Garrison's  followers  came  in  great  numbers  from  Boston, 
completely  out-voted  the  other  side,  and  after  a  stormy  contro- 
versy, nominally  on  the  position  of  women  in  the  movement, 
the  third-party  men  were  defeated,  retired,  and  formed  a  new 
organization  under  the  name  of  "  The  American  and  Foreign 
Anti-Slavery  Society."  The  Emancipator,  hitherto  the  official 
paper  of  the  National  Society,  was  taken  over  by  the  new  body, 
and  acted  as  its  organ  in  the  contest  of  recrimination  and  abuse 
which  broke  forth.  Charges  of  unfair,  hypocritical,  and  even 
criminal  conduct  were  freely  made  by  each  wing  against  the 
other.  In  the  Northwest,  however,  this  split  produced  no  im- 
mediate effect  other  than  seriously  to  injure  common  feeling 
and  to  make  it  easier  for  Whig  or  Democratic  abolitionists  to 
decline  to  follow  Birney  and  the  rest  into  the  new  party. 

In  Ohio  the  struggle  began  with  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
State  society  on  May  27,  1840,  to  which  came  fully  five  hundred 
delegates,  many  of  them  instructed  to  oppose  the  formation  of 


40  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

a  third  party.1  After  two  days  of  heated  debate,  the  society 
decided  to  stand  neutral  on  every  question.  To  avoid  taking 
sides  in  the  quarrel  between  the  old  and  the  new  national  organ- 
ization, it  withdrew  from  being  auxiliary  to  the  one  without 
committing  itself  to  the  other.  It  resolved  that  abolitionists 
ought  to  vote  so  as  to  aid  the  cause,  but  that  it  would  not  pre- 
tend to  decide  which  was  the  most  efficient  method,  whether 
by  staying  away  from  the  polls,  by  scattering  votes,  or  by  form- 
ing a  third  party;  that  it  was  an  organization  for  moral  pur- 
poses; that  servility  to  slave-holders  disqualified  a  candidate 
from  receiving  the  suffrages  of  a  free  people.  The  radicals  held 
several  caucuses,  and  tried  to  get  the  society  to  resolve  at  least 
that  Harrison  and  Van  Buren  were  both  disqualified  for  the 
Presidency  by  reason  of  their  disregard  of  human  rights;  but 
they  were  outvoted.2 

Rising  from  this  first  rebuff,  the  third-party  men  resumed  the 
struggle  in  local  societies.  In  the  last  week  of  July  some  men 
of  Harrison  County  took  the  first  definite  step  by  nominating 
R.  Hammond  as  a  district  Presidential  elector.  A  week  later 
L.  Bissel  was  similarly  nominated  as  elector  for  the  Sixteenth 
Congressional  District,  and  calls  appeared  for  a  dozen  independ- 
ent political  anti-slavery  meetings.  A  call  for  a  convention  for 
Hamilton  County  was  finally  enlarged  so  as  to  cover  the  whole 
State ;  and  on  September  I  there  met,  accordingly,  the  first 

,f  Liberty  Party  convention  in  Ohio.  Like  its  prototype  at 
Albany,  it  was  neither  a  large  nor  a  very  representative  body; 
but,  unlike  that  meeting,  its  scanty  membership  was  not  rein- 
forced by  the  strength  of  its  leaders.  The  uproar  of  "  Tippe- 
canoe  and  Tyler  too,"  Hard  Cider,  Coons,  and  Log  Cabins  was 
carrying  the  Ohio  Whig  abolitionists  fairly  along  with  it;  and 
with  few  exceptions,  the  very  men  who  in  later  years  were  re- 
garded as  the  personification  of  political  abolitionism  were  now 

-  (in  the  Whig  ranks.  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  B.  F.  Wade  and  his 
brother  Edward  Wade,  Leicester  King,  Samuel  Lewis,  and  Sal- 
mon P.  Chase  were  among  those  who  followed  the  triumphal 
Whig  car  in  this  year. 

In  this  convention,  accordingly,  the  leadership  fell  to  two  men, 
1  Emancipator,  June  18,  1840.  2  Ibid.,  June  n,  1840. 


DISRUPTION  INTO  FACTIONS.  41 

Dr.  Gamaliel  Bailey  and  Ex-Senator  Thomas  Morris.  The 
former,  as  has  been  said,  at  first  favored  Harrison  ;  but  in  the 
summer  of  1840  he  gradually  turned  the  influence  of  the 
Philanthropist  in  favor  of  Birney  and  Earle.  The  cause  could 
not  have  gained  a  more  valuable  acquisition  in  all  the  North- 
west than  this  clear-headed,  energetic  organizer  and  journalist. 
Thomas  Morris,  in  spite  of  his  rejection  by  the  Ohio  Demo- 
cratic caucus  in  1838,  had  maintained  his  connection  with  the 
party.  His  interest,  however,  was  wholly  in  anti-slavery  politi- 
cal action,  and  among  the  advocates  of  that  movement  none 
spoke  or  wrote  with  greater  effect.  In  May,  1839,  at  a  public 
meeting  in  Cincinnati,  he  vigorously  condemned  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  just  passed.  In  July  he  wrote  to  the  Albany 
National  Anti-Slavery  Convention  a  letter  strongly  commending 
political  action.  "  Moral  power,"  he  said,  "  is  sufficient  for  this 
work,  but  that  moral  power  must  operate  by  means  to  make  it 
effectual.  Political  action  is'  necessary,  and  that  action  can  only 
be  effectually  exercised  through  the  Ballot-Box.  And  surely 
the  Ballot-Box  can  never  be  used  for  a  more  noble  purpose  than 
to  restore  and  secure  to  any  man  his  inalienable  rights."  1  In 
the  fall  of  that  year  he  lectured  repeatedly  against  slavery,  and 
at  one  time  held  a  joint  debate  for  a  week  with  two  Demo- 
cratic politicians  who  favored  the  Black  Laws.  In  January, 
1840,  Morris  went  as  a  delegate  to  the  Ohio  Democratic  Stata 
Convention,  where  as  usual  he  kept  quiet  on  matters  uncon- 
nected with  slavery.  A  series  of  resolutions  violently  condemn- 
ing anti-slavery  societies  having  been  reported,  however,  he  rose 
to  protest.  At  once  a  pandemonium  of  hissing  and  confusion 
broke  out ;  in  spite  of  the  uproar,  and  cries  of  "  Turn  him  out 
of  the  party,  and  all  abolitionists  with  him  !  "  Morris  stubbornly 
refused  to  yield,  and,  with  one  supporter  only,  persisted  until  he 
had  said  his  say.  After  he  had  finished,  some  one  rose,  and 
amid  general  applause  described  him  as  a  "  rotten  branch  that 
ought  to  be  lopped  off."  2  In  view  of  these,  facts,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  Morris,  with  Democratic  insults  and  proscription 
still  burning  within  him,  appeared  in  September  at  the  Anti- 

1  B.  F.  Morris,  Life  of  Thomas  Morris,  230. 

2  Ibid.,  191  ;  Philanthropist,  Jan.  28,  Aug.  n,  1840. 


42  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

Slavery  Nominating  Convention,  and  in  an  impassioned  speech 
renounced  Van  Buren  and  his  policy,  and  threw  himself  heart 
and  soul  into  the  new  movement.  Spurred  on  by  his  fervor, 
the  convention,  not  without  considerable  opposition  from  among 
its  own  members,  proceeded  to  nominate  a  full  electoral  ticket. 

In  the  local  conventions  that  followed  in  several  of  the  West- 
ern Reserve  counties  and  elsewhere,  there  were  sharp  contests. 
In  some  places  the  policy  of  questioning  was  continued,  as  in 
the  Nineteenth  Congressional  District  convention  at  Akron, 
which  also  supported  Birney.  In  Portage  County  the  conven- 
tion resolved  to  support  three  of  the  Whig  candidates,  and  to 
oppose  another  on  the  ground  "  that  both  the  honor  and  the 
interests  of  the  anti-slavery  enterprise  are  pledged  against  the 
nomination  of  separate  candidates  when  the  existing  parties 
offer  such  as  abolitionists  can  consistently  vote  for."  In  this 
case  the  third-party  men  were  not  suppressed ;  they  reassembled 
after  the  convention  adjourned  and  nominated  some  anti-slavery 
men  of  their  own.1  In  Ashtabula  County  a  two  days'  conven- 
tion rejected  a  third-party  proposal;  whereupon  the  defeated 
section,  under  the  leadership  of  General  J.  H.  Paine,  withdrew 
and  set  up  for  themselves.  In  some  places  third-party  tickets 
were  run  more  successfully;  but  as  a  general  rule  local  organiza- 
tion hardly  existed,  and  in  the  State  election  in  October  there 
were  scarcely  any  third-party  votes. 

Meanwhile  the  other  Northwestern  States  had  been  under- 
going experiences  similar  to  that  of  Ohio.  Illinois  was  first  in 
the  field,  its  anti-slavery  society  meeting  on  July  4  at  Prince- 
ton, Bureau  County.  Like  the  Ohio  Society,  it  adopted  a 
policy  of  neutrality,  ceasing  to  be  auxiliary  to  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  and  also  refusing  to  take  any  definite  stand 
on  voting.  Thereupon  a  separate  meeting  of  third-party  men 
was  called  at  the  same  place,  and  on  July  5  the  first  Northwest- 
ern electoral  ticket  was  put  forth,  with  a  series  of  resolutions 
supporting  Birney  and  Earle,  and  promising  votes  for  none  but 
abolitionists.  Among  the  officers  of  this  convention  was  David 
Nelson,  who,  like  Birney,  had  been  persecuted  out  of  Missouri 
into  Illinois,  and  was  found  among  those  willing  to  go  farther 
1  Philanthropist,  Oct.  2,  1840. 


DIVISIONS  IN  STATE  ORGANIZATIONS.  43 

in  opposing  slavery.  So  small  was  the  band  of  third-party  men 
in  this  State  that  no  local  organization  was  attempted. 

After  Illinois  came  Michigan.  Here  anti-slavery  action  had 
been  wide-spread  for  several  years,  and  the  condition  of  things 
was  more  like  that  in  Ohio.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  Birney 
nomination  none  of  the  leading  men  in  the  State  had  favored  a 
third  party;  but  in  the  spring  of  1840  the  current  began  to  set 
that  way,  and  S.  B.  Treadwell,  of  the  Michigan  Freeman,  grad- 
ually came  to  approve  the  "  Liberty "  nomination.  In  July 
appeared  a  call,  signed  by  seventy  voters,  for  a  State  Nomi- 
nating Convention  on  August  5.  Among  the  signers  were  Dr. 
Porter,  one  of  the  most  active  abolitionists,  and  T.  McGee, 
who  less  than  a  year  before,  when  president  of  the  Michigan 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  had  issued  a  manifesto  condemning  the 
third-party  nominations  in  Jackson  County.  When  the  conven- 
tion met,  some  confusion  was  caused  by  an  attempt  to  prevent 
nomination  ;  but  the  recalcitrant  members  were  eventually 
silenced,  and  an  electoral  ticket  was  selected.  After  this  fol- 
lowed local  nominations  in  Jackson  and  Calhoun  counties  and 
in  the  Fifth  Senatorial  District.  The  opponents  of  a  third 
party  did  not  in  Michigan,  any  more  than  in  Ohio,  fail  to 
express  their  disgust  at  the  course  of  events.  Some  of  those 
who  had  withdrawn  from  the  nominating  convention  issued  an 
address  in  the  State  Gazette,  complaining  of  the  tyranny  of  the 
third-party  men  in  not  allowing  the  expediency  of  separate 
nominations  to  be  debated ;  but,  according  to  the  Freeman, 
nearly  all  of  the  signers  of  the  card  were  Whig  office-holders. 
Some  members  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  State  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  followed  with  a  resolution  declaring  the  Free- 
man, on  account  of  its  political  action,  to  be  no  longer  the 
official  organ  of  the  society ;  but,  although  recriminations  were 
caused  by  these  measures,  they  did  not  prevent  the  formation  of 
the  new  party. 

Indiana  was  the  third  State  in  which  the  question  of  a  third 
party  came  up  for  decision.  A  meeting  of  abolitionists  on  July 
20,  at  Newport,  Wayne  County,  invited  the  friends  of  anti-slavery 
to  assemble  in  a  general  State  Convention  at  that  place  on  August 
24,  "  to  consider  what  measures  are  necessary  to  be  adopted  to 


44  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

effect  the  desired  reform."  Indiana  was  the  most  backward  of 
all  the  Northwestern  States  in  anti-slavery  matters.  Not  until 
the  years  1839-40,  when  the  growth  of  societies  in  Ohio  and 
Michigan  had  come  to  a  standstill,  was  Arnold  Buffum  able  to 
achieve  much  success  in  forming  them  in  Indiana.  Conse- 
quently, of  the  several  hundred  members  present  in  the  conven- 
tion, few  were  abolitionists  of  long  standing,  and  scarcely  any 
were  ready  for  radical  measures.  In  the  opinion  of  Arnold 
Buffum,  fresh  from  working  among  the  people,  anti-slavery  sen- 
timent ran  so  strongly  against  separate  nominations  that  he 
judged  it  unwise  to  try  to  force  matters.  Others  thought  differ- 
ently, and  introduced  a  series  of  resolutions  ratifying  the  nomi- 
nation of  Birney  and  Earle,  and  selecting  an  electoral  ticket. 
As  Buffum  had  predicted,  this  proposal  aroused  great  opposi- 
tion. Mr.  Rariden,  a  Whig  member  of  Congress,  spoke  strongly 
against  it;  the  resolutions  were  rejected  by  a  great  majority, 
and  another  set  was  adopted,  condemning  both  the  great  parties 
for  their  subservience  to  slavery,  and  postponing  separate  action 
until  1844.  Thus  Indiana  refused  to  join  the  new  movement.1 

Considerable  as  were  the  political  changes  in  the  summer  of 
1840  among  anti-slavery  men  and  measures,  and  bitter  as  were  the 
feelings  aroused,  they  attracted  very  little  general  attention  ;  for 
the  Tippecanoe  campaign  was  now  at  its  height,  its  uproar  com- 
pletely drowning  the  lesser  discords  of  quarrelling  abolitionists. 
When  the  party  conventions  or  newspapers  did  turn  aside  from 
the  main  battle  to  glance  at  abolitionist  movements,  they  generally 
condemned  them,  and  did  their  best  to  free  their  own  skirts  and 
inculpate  the  other  party.  The  Ohio  Democratic  Convention 
of  January  8,  after  condemning  abolition  in  general,  resolved 
that  Congress  ought  not  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  without  the  consent  of  the  people  of  Virginia;  "  that 
the  efforts  now  making  for  that  purpose  by  organized  societies 
in  the  free  States  are  hostile  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  " ; 
and  "  that  political  abolition  is  but  ancient  federalism  under  a 
new  guise,  and  that  the  political  action  of  anti-slavery  societies 
is  only  a  device  for  the  overthrow  of  democracy."  2  The  Indian- 

1  Emancipator,  Sept.  24,  Nov.  12,  1840. 

2  Philanthropist,  Jan.  28,  1840. 


INSIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE  NEW  PARTY.  45 

apolis  Democrat^  which  had  at  one  time  "  admired  the  courage 
and  firmness  of  this  singular  party,"  later  said :  "  We  now  be- 
lieve that  the  abolitionists  are  but  a  branch  of  the  federal  Whig 
party  ...  we  believe  that  Harrison  is  the  Northern  Abolitionist 
candidate." 1  The  Michigan  Monroe  Times  asked :  "  Is  not 
the  whole  movement  in  fact  another  of  those  cowardly  tricks 
resorted  to  by  the  party  in  order  to  deceive  the  people,  ...  to 
pacify  the  Southern  Whigs  ?  "  2  Whig  papers,  of  course,  adopted 
the  same  strain,  charging  the  abolitionists  with  virtually  trying 
to  elect  Van  Buren ;  but  their  interest  in  this  campaign  was  not 
so  lively  as  it  became  later,  for  they  did  not  feel  any  especial 
danger  from  the  "  mad  folly"  of  Birney  and  his  followers.3 

Of  any  campaign  on  the  part  of  the  newly-born  third  party 
there  are  few  traces.  Without  organization,  at  swords'  points 
with  those  hitherto  their  strongest  allies,  despised  by  the  regular 
parties,  and  deafened  and  overborne  by  the  tremendous  cry  of 
"  Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too,"  the  political  abolitionists  could 
do  little  but  play  their  part  in  silence.  "  So  strong  has  been  the 
political  excitement,"  wrote  a  correspondent  from  the  Western 
Reserve  to  the  Philanthropist,  "  that  for  all  the  good  to  be  ac- 
complished it  seemed  like  sailing  against  the  wind.  .  .  .  The 
Whig  candidates  for  Congress  did  us  more  harm  than  any  other 
men  on  the  Reserve.  They  had  nothing  to  fear  for  them- 
selves, and  stumped  it  for  Harrison,  for  weeks  throwing  out  in- 
sinuations against  the  third  party  as  an  affair  got  up  to  help  Van 
Buren."4  From  Illinois  came  a  similar  tale:  "Many  who  in 

1  Quoted,  Philanthropist,  Sept.  29,  1840. 

2  Quoted,  ibid.,  Aug.  18,  1840. 

8  The  Philanthropist  (Aug.  18,  Sept.  29,  1840)  collected  the  following 
remarks  :  the  Urbana  Citizen  asked,  "  Have  the  Locofocos  and  the  ultra 
abolitionists  of  Ohio  formed  a  coalition  ?  " ;  the  Conneaut  Gazette  queried, 
"Can  any  man  doubt  that  this  is  a  Loco-Foco  move  from  the  foundation?"; 
the  Marietta  Intelligencer  said,  "  The  editor  of  the  Philanthropist  may  talk 
of  his  indifference,  but  we  imagine  he  can  hardly  make  any  man  believe 
that  his  influence  is  not  subservient  to  the  interests  of  Van  Buren"  ;  and  the 
Medina  Constitutionalist  remarked,  "  The  leaders  in  this  scheme  are  more 
desirous  to  secure  the  re-election  of  Van  Buren  .  .  .  than  to  ameliorate  the 
condition  of  the  slave."  See  Emancipator,  Aug.  18,  1840. 

4  Ibid.,  Dec.  9,  1840. 


46  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   THIRD  PARTY. 

times  more  perilous,  when  Lovejoy  fell,  remained  unshaken  by 
the  threats  and  howlings  of  mob  fury,  were  borne  headlong  by 
the  shout  of '  Tip  and  Tyler.'  Prominent  members  and  officers 
of  the  State  Society,  and  men  in  the  garb  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry even,  voted  for  Harrison."  1 

When  election  day  came,  very  many  waverers  finally  went 
with  their  party  "  once  more  " ;  many  others,  prepared  to  vote 
for  Birney,  could  find  no  ballots,  and  did  not  know  the  names  of 
the  third-party  electors ;  and  some  stayed  away  from  the  polls. 
It  was  not  until  weeks  after  the  result  of  the  contest  was  known 
that,  in  the  few  insignificant  returns  of  scattering  votes,  the  new 
party  recognized  itself.2  Only  in  Massachusetts  was  the  third- 
party  vote  one  per  cent  of  the  total ;  and  in  Ohio,  where  the 
anti-slavery  movement  had  been  extremely  active,  the  vote  was 
less  than  half  as  numerous  proportionally  as  that  of  Michigan. 
It  is  not  at  all  certain,  however,  that  the  figures  given  below  are 
correct.  In  all  probability  a  good  many  more  anti-slavery  votes 
were  cast  in  scattered  places,  but,  through  the  carelessness  or  the 
indifference  of  election  officials,  were  not  returned.  Neverthe- 
less, whatever  additions  be  made  on  this  score,  the  fact  remains 
that  the  Birney  ticket  failed  completely  to  attract  any  large  pro- 
portion of  even  the  professed  abolitionists.  Elizur  Wright,  in 
his  life  of  Myron  Holley,  estimates  the  number  of  voting  mem- 
bers of  anti-slavery  societies  as  not  less  than  7O,OOO.3  If  we 

1  Emancipator,  June  10,  1841. 

2  The  Northern  vote  by  States  was  as  follows :  — 


Democratic. 

Whig. 

Abolitionist. 

Per  cent. 

Maine  .... 

46,201 

46,612 

194 

.002 

New  Hampshire 

32,761 

26,158 

III 

.OOI 

Vermont  .     .     . 

18,018 

32,440 

319 

.006 

Massachusetts   . 

51,944 

72,874 

1,415 

.Oil 

Rhode  Island     . 

3,301 

5,278 

(42) 

.004 

Connecticut 

25,296 

31,601 

174 

•003 

New  York     .     . 

212,527 

225,817 

2,798 

,006 

Pennsylvania     . 

143,672 

144,021 

343 

.001 

Ohio     .... 

124,982 

148,157 

9°3 

.003 

Michigan  .     . 

21,131 

22,933 

328 

.007 

Illinois 

47,496 

45,558 

157 

.001 

727,329 

801,449 

6,784 

Elizur  Wright,  Life  of  Myron  Holley,  235. 


THE    VOTE  IN  THE  NORTHWEST.  47 

consider  that,  in  1837,  607  societies  out  of  a  total  of  1,006 
reported  55,790  members,  and  that  in  1840  there  were  many 
more  societies,  this  seems  a  conservative  estimate.  It  is  safe 
to  say  that  in  1840  not  one  in  ten  of  the  thousands  of  abolition- 
ists who  had  resolved  to  act  without  regard  to  party  ties,  and 
with  a  sole  purpose  of  aiding  the  cause  of  liberty,  felt  called 
upon  to  leave  the  party  with  which  he  had  hitherto  voted. 

From  the  Northwest  we  have  a  few  returns  by  counties,  the 
distribution  of  which  is  not  without  significance.  In  Ohio  seven- 
teen counties  out  of  seventy-eight  return  550  votes,  Ashtabula 
heading  the  list  with  95  votes,  Trumbull  and  Lorain  having  each 
82  ;  and  the  ten  counties  of  the  Western  Reserve  cast  nearly  half 
of  the  total  State  vote.  The  contrast,  however,  between  the  425 
from  the  Western  Reserve  and  the  432  which  Geauga  County 
alone  cast  in  1839,  is  significant.  Outside  the  Reserve  the  most 
votes  appear  to  have  been  cast  near  Cincinnati,  which,  like  the 
Western  Reserve,  had  many  New  England  settlers.  Since  both 
these  sections  were  later  the  strongholds  of  Liberty  and  Free 
Soil  parties,  this  vote  of  1840,  meagre  as  it  was,  really  indicated 
the  future  course  of  anti-slavery  political  growth  in  Ohio.1 

In  Illinois,  on  the  contrary,  almost  nothing  of  the  sort  is 
visible;  for  the  seven  northeastern  counties,  later  to  become 
the  rivals  of  the  Ohio  Western  Reserve,  gave  barely  20  votes  to 
the  diminutive  total  of  157.  The  centre  of  Illinois  political 
abolitionism,  in  1840,  was  Adams  County  on  the  Mississippi, 
which  gave  42  votes.  The  only  facts  brought  out  by  the  Illi- 
nois vote  were  that  "  Egypt,"  the  southern  half  of  the  State, 
would  give  no  abolition  votes,  and  that  the  influence  of  Love- 
joy's  murder  still  lingered  to  make  the  region  near  Alton  more 
radical  than  the  northern  part  of  the  State/1 

1  For  the  Ohio  vote,  collected  from  scattered  returns,  see  Emancipator, 
Nov.,  1 840-] an.,  1841. 

3  For  the  Illinois  vote,  see  Emancipator,  Dec.  10,  1841. 


CHAPTER   V. 

ORGANIZATION    OF   THE    LIBERTY   PARTY. 
1840-1843. 

AT  the  end  of  1840  the  new  abolition  movement  had  com- 
pleted ten  years  of  its  course;  and  the  fruit  of  its  agitation 
was  seen  in  the  general  development  of  a  distinctly  Northern 
anti-slavery  sentiment.  In  the  Northwest,  even  where  indiffer- 
ence had  been  most  marked  and  had  proved  hardest  to  over- 
come, the  growth  of  anti-slavery  societies  had  steadily  gone  on. 
Ohio  and  Michigan  were  covered  with  them ;  Illinois  and  In- 
diana contained  clusters  of  anti-slavery  communities ;  and  even 
the  two  frontier  Territories,  hitherto  entirely  under  the  influence 
of  Mississippi  River  traffic  and  connections,  were  beginning  to 
feel  the  new  anti-slavery  influence.  In  1840-41  societies  started 
up  in  the  southeastern  counties  of  Wisconsin  adjacent  to  the 
anti-slavery  region  of  Illinois,  and  in  1841  the  first  society  in 
Iowa  was  formed.  Wherever  these  organizations  had  worked, 
came  a  change  in  public  sentiment.  It  was  no  longer  fashion- 
able among  Whig  papers  entirely  to  condemn  agitation,  nor 
did  any  but  the  hardiest  Democratic  sheets  continue  in  the 
contemptuous  strain  which  was  common  a  decade  earlier. 

Of  this  growth  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  the  legislative  action 
of  the  Northwestern  States,  as  we  have  seen,  gives  almost  no 
reflex.  On  the  contrary,  the  years  1834-40  saw  a  series  of 
resolutions  and  enactments  condemning  abolition,  and  render- 
ing harsher  the  burdens  already  oppressing  the  free  blacks  in 
the  Northwest;  for  the  Southern-born  elements  of  population  in 
the  southern  and  western  halves  of  all  the  States  except  Michi- 
gan controlled  local  politics,  and  it  was  not  among  these  people, 


THIRD-PARTY  ACTIVITY  AFTER  ELECTIONS.         51 

will  be  presented  by  one  or  both  of  the  existing  political 
parties."  l  In  this  convention,  which  definitely  established  the 
Liberty  party  in  Ohio,  Thomas  Morris  and  Dr.  Bailey  were 
again  the  leading  spirits.  Purdy,  of  the  Xenia  Free  Press,  a 
"  Whig  abolitionist,"  led  the  opposition  with  great  pertinacity, 
but  was  voted  down ;  and  he  finally  separated  from  his  old  col- 
leagues. From  this  time,  although  there  were  still  occasional 
protests  and  complaints  from  disappointed  Whig  or  Democratic 
abolitionists,  predicting  total  failure  and  fearing  that  the  at- 
tempt to  run  a  third  ticket  would  "  make  a  laughing-stock  of 
our  holy  cause,"  the  Liberty  party  was  established  beyond 
dispute. 

In  Indiana  the  reaction  was  still  sharper.  A  meeting  of  in- 
dependent abolitionists  for  the  First  Congressional  District,  at 
Economy,  Wayne  County,  began  a  movement  for  third-party 
action  in  December,  1840,  and  recommended  the  nomination  of 
independent  candidates  for  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial 
offices.  The  president  of  this  meeting  was  Isaiah  Osborne,  a 
son  of  the  Quaker,  Charles  Osborne,  who  had  been  the  prede- 
cessor of  Lundy  and  Garrison  in  advocating  immediate  eman- 
cipation ; 2  his  selection  shows  how  the  old  emancipationist 
movement,  as  well  as  the  later  abolitionism,  was  swallowed  up 
by  the  new  political  agitation.  A  convention  for  the  Third  Con- 
gressional District,  January  I,  1841,  resolved  "that  to  oppose 
slavery  morally  by  speaking  against  it  as  a  sin  while  we  sustain 
it  politically  ...  is  a  gross  inconsistency  and  paralyzing  to  our 
moral  influence."  3  A  call  was  finally  issued  for  a  State  Conven- 
tion of  the  friends  of  independent  political  action  to  meet  at  the 
same  time  with  the  State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  to  consider  the 
subject  of  nominating  for  Congress  and  for  the  legislature.  On 
February  8  the  convention  met,  resolved  almost  unanimously  to 
support  Liberty  candidates,  and  thereby  reversed  completely  the 
action  of  that  State  Convention  which  six  months  before  had 
resolved  to  adhere  to  the  old  methods.  The  true  explanation 

1  Philanthropist,  Jan.  27,  Feb.  3,  1841. 

2  Correspondence  of  writer  with  G.  W.  Julian,  1895.      See  also  Philan- 
thropist, Dec.  23,  1840. 

3  Philanthropist,  Jan.  27,  1841. 


52  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

of  this  change  is  that  abolitionists  who  favored  acting  with  the 
old  parties  no  longer  attended  abolitionist  conventions;  and 
those  present,  finding  no  opposition,  gained  courage  to  go 
on  by  themselves. 

Michigan  followed  Indiana.  After  the  meeting  of  the  State 
Anti-Slavery  Society  at  Jackson,  on  February  10-11,  a  Lib- 
erty convention  organized,  with  Thomas  McGee  as  president. 
Ohio  arid  Indiana  had  been  content  merely  to  record  their 
opinion  in  favor  of  independent  action  and  to  begin  prepara- 
tions; but  Michigan  far  outstripped  them  by  selecting  a  State 
Central  Committee,  and  nominating  Jabez  S.  Fitch,  of  Calhoun 
County,  and  N.  Power,  of  Oakland  County,  for  Governor  and 
Lieutenant-Governor  respectively:  this  was  the  first  Liberty 
State  ticket  in  the  Northwest.  Furthermore,  a  ballot  was  taken 
on  the  preferences  for  Liberty  candidates  for  President  and 
Vice-President.1  There  is  no  doubt  that  at  this  time  Michi- 
gan abolitionists  were  much  better  organized  and  more  united 
in  sentiment  than  those  of  any  other  Northwestern  State;  but 
we  shall  see  that  this  superiority  was  held  for  a  few  years 
only,  and  that  after  1844  anti-slavery  political  sentiment  in  that 
State  rapidly  lost  its  coherence. 

Illinois  followed  close  after  her  sister  States.  On  February 
25  a  State  Anti-Slavery  Convention  met  at  Lowell  and  adopted 
a  series  of  resolutions  commenting  on  national  affairs,  urging 
a  National  Liberty  Presidential  Nominating  Convention,  and 
recommending  abolitionists  in  Illinois  to  make  nominations  for 
Congress,  on  the  ground  that  "  efficient  political  action  can  be 
produced  only  by  independent  and  united  effort,"  and  that  "  the 
right  of  suffrage  includes  the  right  of  nomination."  A  letter 
from  J.  Cross  describing  this  convention  in  the  Emancipator 
said :  "  The  rallying  shout  of  '  Hard  cider '  has  lost  its  power. 
A  log  cabin  no  longer  has  the  charm  of  novelty.  Many,  very 
many  who  voted  with  the  prominent  parties  at  the  Presidential 
election  have  seen  their  error  and  repented.  .  .  .  The  plan  of 

1  The  ballot  resulted  as  follows  :  — 
President :  J.  G.  Birney,  49.  Vice-President :  T.  Earle,  48. 

T.  Morris,  i.  A.  Stewart,  I. 

See  Emancipator ',  June  3,  1841. 


THE  FIRST  NATIONAL   CONVENTION.  53 

independent  nominations  is  rising  rapidly  in  the  estimation  of  the 
more  efficient  abolitionists."  * 

Definitely  to  establish  the  new  party,  there  met  in  New  York 
on  May  12  the  first  really  national  Liberty  convention.  Dele- 
gates were  present  from  all  the  New  England  States,  from  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey,  three  from  Ohio,  and  two 
from  Indiana;  the  delegates  chosen  by  Michigan  seem  not  to 
have  come.  The  composition  of  the  meeting  and  the  pro- 
ceedings show  that  as  yet  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  political 
anti-slavery  movement  was  in  the  East,  and  that  the  Northwest 
was  content  to  follow  the  leadership  of  such  men  as  Joshua 
Leavitt,  William  Goodell,  and  James  G.  Birney.  On  the  first 
day  it  was  resolved  to  nominate  candidates  for  President  and 
Vice-President  in  1844,  and  on  the  first  ballot  Birney  and  Morris 
were  selected.2  On  the  second  day  the  convention  discussed 
the  question  of  organization.  It  was  resolved  "  that  the  friends 
of  Liberty  throughout  the  nation  be  requested  to  nominate  and 
to  vote  for  township,  county,  and  all  other  officers  favorable  to 
the  immediate  emancipation  of  slavery  " ;  and  in  furtherance  of 
this  comprehensive  scheme  it  was  resolved  to  have  State, 
county,  town,  ward,  and  district  committees,  auxiliary  to  a 
National  Committee.  These  were  to  canvass  every  town  and 
ward  in  the  free  States,  keeping  a  roll  of  Liberty  voters  and 
reporting  the  same  to  the  National  Committee.3  The  conven- 
tion then  adjourned,  to  meet  again  in  two  years  at  the  call  of 
the  Central  Committee.  It  had  pledged  the  political  abolition- 
ists to  the  policy  of  building  up  from  the  start  a  new  political 
party,  a  plan  involving  labors  to  which  all  previous  work  was 
merely  preliminary,  but  into  which  all  the  Liberty  men  of  the 
country  now  threw  themselves  with  enthusiasm,  high  hopes,  and 
a  complete  lack  of  comprehension  of  the  difficulties  of  the  task 
before  them.  Probably  half  of  the  delegates  expected  the  Lib- 

1  Emancipator,  June  10,  1841. 

2  The  vote  was  as  follows  :  — 

President :  J.  G.  Birney,  108.  Vice-President :  Thomas  Morris,  83. 

Thomas  Morris,  2.  Thomas  Earle,  18. 

Gerrit  Smith,  i.  Gerrit  Smith,  2. 

William  Jay,  i.  A.  Stewart,  I. 

8  Emancipator,  May  20,  1841. 


54  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

erty  party  to  carry  the  election  of  1844;  and  even  the  most 
cautious  felt  that  by  1848  their  party  would  be  dominant  in  the 
North.  Yet  nineteen  years  were  to  pass  before  a  party  in  any 
sense  a  descendant  of  the  Liberty  organization  was  to  carry  a 
national  election,  and  that  by  a  minority  vote. 

In  the  spring  of  1841,  then,  the  Liberty  party  was  placed  on 
its  feet  in  all  the  Northern  States.  The  system  of  questioning 
candidates,  and  of  waiting  for  favorable  action  on  the  part  of 
the  old  parties,  were  things  of  the  past ;  and  a  new  organization 
had  begun  its  attempt  to  absorb  all  radical  anti-slavery  feeling 
except  that  which  still  clung  to  the  tenets  of  Garrison,  Henry  C. 
Wright,  and  the  other  "  Non-Resistants."  The  next  three  years 
were  a  period  of  intense  activity  in  the  Northwest.  To  treat  the 
details  fully,  however,  would  be  neither  interesting  nor  profit- 
able, since  it  would  be  nothing  more  than  to  give  a  list  of 
conventions,  nominations,  and  votes  cast.  In  no  State  of  the 
Northwest  did  the  Liberty  men  succeed  in  electing  any  one ;  nor 
in  these  three  years  did  their  organizations  succeed  in  produc- 
ing any  visible  effect  on  the  policy  of  the  older  parties.  Their 
activity  was  directed  to  agitation  and  protest,  and  not  to  legis- 
lative action  or  questions  of  policy;  it  was,  as  the  Emanci- 
pator said,  practically  a  continuation  of  the  anti-slavery  society 
methods  under  a  new  organization,  with  some  additional 
principles  of  action. 

In  Ohio  several  local  conventions  were  held,  mostly  on 
the  Western  Reserve  and  in  the  territory  near  Cincinnati ; 
but  the  process  of  disentanglement  between  Liberty  and  Whig 
abolitionists  was  slow.  At  a  political  convention  held  after 
the  State  Anti-Slavery  convention,  a  last  effort  was  made  to 
commit  the  party  in  favor  of  withdrawing  its  candidates  in  case 
the  other  parties  offered  suitable  nominations;  but,  though 
strongly  supported,  it  met  defeat.  Still  the  Clinton  County 
convention  resolved  not  to  nominate,  unless  no  sound  candi- 
dates were  put  up  by  the  other  parties;  and  in  Lorain  and 
Trumbull  counties  the  fact  that  the  Whig  nominees  were  men 
hitherto  known  as  "  abolitionists  "  prevented  the  Liberty  ticket 
from  achieving  much  success.  In  some  places  nominations 
were  made  too  late  to  be  widely  known;  but,  in  spite  of  all 


LOCAL  NOMINATIONS  IN  1841.  55 

drawbacks,  the  Ohio  Liberty  men  succeeded  in  casting  over 
2,000  votes.1 

In  Indiana  there  were  not  the  same  difficulties  as  in  Ohio,  for 
there  was  no  large  class  of  abolitionists  in  the  old  organizations 
to  distract  third-party  men  by  claiming  to  be  more  anti-slavery 
than  they.  The  scanty  numbers  and  scattered  condition  of 
Liberty  sympathizers,  however,  made  concerted  action  very 
difficult.  In  a  few  places  county  nominations  were  made  for 
the  August  election  ;  but  how  large  a  vote  the  Liberty  party 
cast  is  not  known.  There  are  returns  of  594  votes  from  two 
counties.2 

In  the  spring  of  1841,  Michigan  anti-slavery  men  opened 
the  campaign  by  running  third-party  tickets  in  town  elections ; 
and  in  April  the  State  Anti- Slavery  Society  declared  itself  in 
favor  of  political  action,  condemned  scattering  votes  —  a  favor- 
ite Garrisonian  device  —  as  "  a  species  of  duplicity,"  and  separ- 
ated from  the  American  Anti- Slavery  Society.  Following  this 
action,  the  third-party  men  made  vigorous  efforts  at  organiza- 
tion. Besides  the  candidates  for  Governor  and  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  there  were  three  nominations  for  the  Senate  and  at 
least  twenty-five  for  the  House.  Conventions  were  held  in  a 
large  number  of  counties;  and  Birney,  now  a  resident  of  the 
State,  took  the  stump  for  a  part  of  the  fall,  Michigan  being  the 
first  Northwestern  State  to  organize  a  distinct  campaign.  The 
vote  was  as  follows :  Democratic  —  Barry,  20,975  >  Whig  — 
Fuller,  15,469;  Liberty  —  Fitch,  I,2I4.3 

In  Illinois  the  Liberty  men  made  only  one  nomination,  that 
of  F.  Collins  for  Congress  in  the  Third  District.  There  was 
some  agitation,  but  nothing  like  a  campaign.  The  Liberty 


1  For  the   Liberty  campaign  in    Ohio,   see   Philanthropist,    May   26- 
Oct.  27,  1841 ;  for  the  vote,  see  Emancipator,  Nov.-Dec.,  1841,  and  Ameri- 
can Liberty  Almanac,    1844.     We   have   separate  returns  for  twenty-one 
counties,  which  amount  to  1,782.     The  total  was  claimed  to  be  2,848,  three 
times  as  large  as  the  vote  of  the  preceding  year. 

2  Emancipator,  Sept.  9,  1841. 

8  Ibid.,  June  3,  Aug.  5,  Sept.  23,  1841.  For  the  vote,  see  Ibid.,  Dec.  10, 
1841,  and  Detroit  Advertiser,  Dec.  9,  1841,  Dec.  4,  1843.  There  are  sepa- 
rate returns  from  eight  counties. 


56  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

vote,  for  which  we  have  full  returns,  amounted  to  527,  a  con- 
siderable increase  over  the  157  of  the  year  before.1 

In  1842  much  the  same  programme  was  continued.  In  Ohio 
a  State  Convention,  on  December  29,  1841,  nominated  Leicester 
King  for  Governor,  thereby  showing  the  thoroughly  practical 
character  of  the  Ohio  leaders ;  for  King  was  a  member  of  the 
State  bench,  and  had  served  two  terms  as  State  Senator. 
Wholly  in  sympathy  with  the  cause,  and  yet  an  experienced 
politician,  he  was  an  eminently  fit  candidate.  It  would  be  easy 
to  fill  pages  with  accounts  of  local  conventions,  with  the  labors 
of  King,  Morris,  and  others,  and  with  the  signs  of  the  growth  of 
anti-slavery  feeling  in  portions  of  the  State  outside  the  Reserve 
and  the  Cincinnati  district;  but  it  suffices  to  say  that  the 
Liberty  men  made  a  more  thorough  canvass  than  had  before 
been  attempted,  and  in  October  almost  doubled  their  vote.2 
The  election  returns  are:  Democratic — Shannon,  129,064; 
Whig— Corwin,  125,621;  Liberty  —  King,  5,405.  Of  the 
Liberty  vote  the  eleven  Western  Reserve  counties  cast  2,433  > 
the  sixty-seven  others,  2,972. 3  For  the  first  time  the  Liberty 
men  appeared  to  have  the  balance  of  power. 

Indiana  continued  the  same  course  as  before,  making  several 
local  nominations,  but  having  little  or  no  State  organization. 
There  was  still  so  much  timidity  among  professed  anti-slavery 
men  about  joining  the  Liberty  party,  that  the  Free  Labor 
Advocate  felt  obliged  to  adopt  a  somewhat  apologetic  air,  say- 
ing, as  a  justification  for  its  course  in  advocating  political  anti- 
slavery  action :  "  We  think  the  abolitionists  of  the  West  very 
generally  believe  in  the  propriety  of  the  measures  mentioned."4 
Of  the  vote,  no  exact  returns  are  known,  but  it  was  claimed  to 
be  between  800  and  cpo.5  In  Michigan  the  activity  of  the  pre- 
ceding year  was  continued,  largely  owing  to  the  influence  of 
Birney,  who  travelled  and  spoke  indefatigably.  Local  and 
legislative  nominations  received  in  the  fall  the  support  of"  at 

1  Emancipator,  Aug.  5,  1841.     For  the  vote,  see  Ibid.,  Dec.  10,  1841. 

2  For  this  campaign,  see  Philanthropist,  passim. 
8  Vote  in  Whig  Almanac,  1843. 

4  Free  Labor  Advocate,  Sept.  24,  1842. 

6  Emancipator,  Sept.  i,  1842;  Liberty  Almanac,  1844. 


LIBERTY  CAMPAIGNS  IN  18J&-8.  57 

least  1,665  votes.1  Illinois  took  a  decided  step  in  advance.  A 
State  convention  in  May  nominated  C.  VV.  Hunter,  of  Madison 
County,  and  F.  Collins,  of  Adams  County,  for  Governor  and 
Lieutenant-Governor  respectively ;  and  regular  Liberty  nomina- 
tions were  made  in  twenty  counties.  In  August  the  vote  stood  : 
Democratic  —  Ford,  45,608;  Whig  —  Duncan,  38,304;  Liberty 
-  Hunter,  909.2 

The  opening  of  the  year  1843  found  the  Liberty  party  estab- 
lished and,  although  still  very  diminutive,  apparently  growing 
at  a  rate  to  render  it  important  in  the  near  future.  In  Ohio  the 
activity  of  the  Liberty  men  was  unceasing ;  convention  followed 
convention  in  a  majority  of  the  senatorial  districts  of  the  State, 
and  the  leaders  of  the  cause  lectured  from  spring  until  the  elec- 
tion. In  spite  of  the  facts  that  it  was  an  "  off  year,"  with  no  State 
ticket,  and  that  the  Whigs  made  urgent  efforts  to  get  the 
Liberty  abolitionists  to  support  their  nominees,  the  official 
returns  gave  the  Liberty  vote  a  considerable  increase  in 
eighteen  out  of  twenty-one  districts,  as  follows:  Democratic, 
102,335;  Whig,  107,249;  Liberty,  6,552.  The  Philanthropist 
was  dissatisfied  with  these  figures  and  charged  fraud,  claiming 
to  have  returns  amounting  to  7,466. 3 

In  Indiana,  at  the  same  time,  a  vigorous  effort  was  made. 
In  September,  1842,  a  State  Convention  nominated  the  first 
ticket  for  Governor  and  Lieutenant-Governor,  naming  E. 
Deming  and  S.  S.  Harding  respectively.  Attempts  were  made 
to  carry  on  a  regular  campaign  with  the  help  of  speakers  from 
Ohio;  and  in  August  of  1843  the  vote  stood:  Democratic  — 
Whitcomb,  60,714;  Whig  —  Bigger,  58,701;  Liberty  —  Deming, 
1,684.  Of  the  Liberty  vote,  Wayne,  Randolph,  and  Henry 
counties  gave  792,  almost  half.4  Wayne  County,  with  a  large 
Quaker  population,  was  the  centre  of  activity,  its  convention 

.'  *  Emancipator,  Sept.  I,  Nov.  17,  1842;  Detroit  Advertiser,  Dec.  15, 
1842;  Liberty  Almanac,  1844.  Probably  there  were  more  votes. 

2  Vote  in  Whig  Almanac,  1843.  See  Philanthropist,  April  20,  1842; 
Emancipator,  Aii'g.  25,  1842. 

8  Official  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1844.  See  Philanthropist,  quoted 
in  Emancipator,  Dec.  14,  1843. 

4  Official  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1844. 


58  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

resolving  to  form  Liberty  associations  in  every  township,  which 
should  pledge  their  members  in  writing  to  vote  only  Liberty 
tickets.1 

The  Michigan  Liberty  men  were  also  in  the  field  with  a  State 
ticket,  nominating  J.  G.  Birney  and  L.  F.  Stevens  for  Governor 
and  Lieutenant-Governor  respectively,  at  a  convention  in  Feb- 
ruary. Besides  these,  there  were  candidates  for  Congress  in 
all  the  three  districts,  six  candidates  for  State  Senators,  and 
nominations  for  the  Assembly  in  a  dozen  counties.  At  the 
State  Convention  a  ludicrous  incident  occurred :  two  colored 
delegates  were  not  allowed  to  participate  in  nominating  because 
they  were  not  legal  voters.  This  delightful  inconsistency  in  an 
abolitionist  convention  served  to  furnish  Democratic  papers 
with  endless  amusement;  and  the  Signal  of  Liberty  felt  ill-con- 
cealed mortification.2  Birney  was  again  the  life  of  the  cause, 
and  in  September  drew  a  greatly  increased  vote.  It  stood : 
Democratic  —  Barry,  21,414;  Whig — Pitcher,  15,007;  Liberty 
—  Birney,  2,775.  This  proportion  showed  Michigan  to  be  one 
of  the  strongest  Liberty  States  in  the  country.3 

In  Illinois,  in  this  year  (1843),  the  Liberty  party  made  great 
gains.  State  conventions  planned  for  organization  ;  local  con- 
ventions made  nominations  ;  and  before  the  election  there  were 
Liberty  candidates  for  Congress  in  every  district  except  the  two 
in  the  southeast,  called  "  Egypt,"  where,  among  former  slave- 
holders and  the  descendants  of  immigrants  from  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee,  abolitionism  found  barren  soil.  In  August  the  vote 
stood  at  a  figure  more  than  twice  as  large  as  ever  before  — 
1,954,  of  which  the  Fourth  District,  in  the  northeastern  corner, 
gave  1,174.* 

In  this  year  a  new  member  joined  the  Liberty  ranks,  the 
Territory  of  Wisconsin,  hitherto  hardly  touched  by  the  anti- 

1  Free  Labor  Advocate,  May  20,  1843. 

2  Ann  Arbor  Michigan  Argus,  Feb.  13,  July  26,  Aug.  2,  1843. 
8  Official  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1844. 

4  Emancipator,  Aug.  31,  1843;  Albany  Patriot,  Aug.  22,  Oct.  3,  1843. 
The  Western  Citizen  claimed  a  total  of  2,171,  and  in  all  probability  the  vote 
was  larger  than  the  official  returns ;  for  the  figures  indicate  in  some  counties 
a  suppression  or  an  omission  of  Liberty  votes. 


SLIGHTNESS  OF  THE  PARTY^S  GAINS.  59 

slavery  movement,  but  destined  to  surpass  all  the  other  North- 
western States  in  the  vigorous  growth  of  its  anti-slavery  principles. 
In  1838-40  had  begun  the  invasion  of  this  outlying  Territory  by 
Eastern  immigrants,  many  of  whom,  coming  from  New  England 
and  New  York,  brought  with  them  anti-slavery  principles  and 
habits.  Occupied  as  these  people  were,  however,  in  frontier 
pursuits,  it  was  not  until  1842  that  a  Territorial  Anti-Slavery 
Convention  was  held  and  a  society  organized.  In  1843  the 
Wisconsin  abolitionists,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  agitation 
had  hardly  begun,  were  too  impatient  to  join  the  Liberty  party 
to  wait  any  longer,  and  accordingly  called  a  Territorial  conven- 
tion to  nominate  a  candidate  for  delegate  to  Congress.  The 
movement  ended  in  almost  a  complete  fiasco ;  for  the  candidate 
selected,  a  strong  Whig,  proceeded  to  advise  people  not  to 
vote  for  him,  with  the  result  that  at  the  election  there  was  only 
a  handful  of  Liberty  votes,  the  ticket  receiving  almost  no  sup- 
port in  counties  where  anti-slavery  sentiment  was  most  prevalent. 
The  vote  stood:  Democratic  —  Dodge,  4,685  ;  Whig  —  Hickox, 
3,184;  Liberty  —  Spooner,  I52.1 

Thus  by  the  end  of  the  fourth  year  of  the  Liberty  party's  / 
existence   its   vote   had    increased    practically  ten   times  since  I 
1840;  2  but  it  fell  far  short  of  the  Liberty  hopes  of  1841.     In  / 
none  of  the  States  was  it  yet  over  ten  per  cent ;  and  in  Ohio, 
where  for  ten  years  abolitionist  agitation  had  been  active,  it  was 
only  three  per  cent.     The  reason  was,  that  in  this  period  the 
Liberty  party,  gain  as  it  might,  entirely  failed  to  convince  the 
public  that  it  was  called  for  by  the  national  political  situation. 
This  failure  was  not  due  to  lack  of  leadership,  or  of  adequate 
effort ;  for  among  the  most  active  agitators  were  men  who  were 
to  become  founders  of  a  successful  anti-slavery  party. 

1  Emancipator,  April  6,  Sept.  28,  Oct.  26,  1843;  Milwaukee  Sentinel, 
Sept.  23,  1843.     For  Spooner's  action,  see  Milwaukee  Democrat,  Nov.  17, 

1843- 

2  This  increase  is  shown  by  the  following  comparison:  — 

Ohio.         Indiana.  Michigan.  Illinois.  Wisconsin. 

1840  ...       903  328  157 

1841  .     .     .  2,800  (?)      599  1,214  527 

1842.      .      .5,405  900  (?)        1,665  9<>9 

1843  .     .     .  6,552        1,684          2,775  1,954  152 


60  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

In  Ohio  the  ebb  tide  after  1840  brought  a  number  of  brilliant 
men  into  the  Liberty  ranks  to  aid  Dr.  Gamaliel  Bailey,  General 
J.  H.  Paine,  and  the  indefatigable  Thomas  Morris.  Salmon 
P.  Chase  had  lived  in  Cincinnati  for  ten  years  without  taking 
part  in  politics.  Falling  in  with  J.  G.  Birney  in  1835-36,  he, 
like  Thomas  Morris,  was  converted  into  a  strong  opponent  of 
slavery.  He  bore  a  creditable  part  in  the  events  connected  with 
the  mobbing  of  Birney's  press  ;  but  he  did  not  identify  himself 
with  the  anti-slavery  cause  until,  in  May,  1841,  he  joined  the 
Hamilton  County  convention,  and  at  once  by  his  ability,  per- 
sonal impressiveness,  eloquence,  and  remarkable  power  in  con- 
stitutional argument  stepped  into  the  lead.1  Fully  as  valuable 
an  accession  was  Samuel  Lewis,  also  of  Hamilton  County.  He 
was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  a  man  of  the  most  fiery  elo- 
quence heard  in  behalf  of  the  anti-slavery  cause  in  Ohio  since 
the  days  of  Theodore  Weld.  Lewis  had  served  a  term  as 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  and  in  this  capacity  had 
carried  on  a  systematic  educational  propaganda,  travelling  the 
State  from  end  to  end,  stirring  the  people  of  backwoods  coun- 
ties into  an  appreciation  of  education,  so  that  wherever  he 
passed  schools  sprang  up  and  flourished.  Into  the  anti-slavery 
cause  he  now  brought  his  zeal,  his  talents  as  a  public  speaker, 
and  a  devotion  and  self-sacrifice  unsurpassed  by  those  of  any 
other  man  in  Ohio. 

With  Morris,  Bailey,  Chase,  and  Lewis,  there  labored  at  this 
time  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State  a  number  of  men  well 
worthy  of  more  extended  notice  than  can  be  'given  here.  Such 
were  Rev.  W.  H.  Brisbane,  formerly  of  North  Carolina,  now 
an  ardent  radical  Liberty  man  ;  G.  W.  Ells,  who  had  been 
Morris's  only  supporter  in  the  Democratic  State  Convention 
of  1840,  and  who  like  him  had  been  "kicked  out  of  the  party"; 
and  William  Birney,  the  son  of  J.  G.  Birney,  showing  already 
his  father's  talent  for  organization.  In  the  Western  Reserve, 
General  J.  H.  Paine,  of  Painesville,  a  vehement  speaker  and  a 
practical  worker,  who  had  been  for  a  time  the  only  prominent 

1  See  R.  B.  Warden,  Private  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Salmon  Portland 
Chase  ;  J.  W.  Schuckers,  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Salmon  P.  Chase;  W. 
Birney,  /.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  2  59. 


LEADERS  IN  OHIO  AND  INDIANA.  6l 

third-party  man  there,  soon  received  strong  reinforcements. 
Leicester  King,  whose  course  in  the  legislature  has  been  re- 
ferred to  above,  was  among  the  first,  after  the  hurricane  of  1840, 
to  bring  his  legal  ability  and  philanthropic  zeal  to  the  aid  of  the 
unpopular  cause.1  Then  came  Edward  Wade,  who  in  1838  had 
been  zealous  for  political  action,  but  who  in  1840  was  carried  off 
his  feet  by  the  "  Tippecanoe  "  war-cry,  and  wrote  a  letter  advising 
abolitionists  to  support  Harrison.  Though  of  gentler  tempera- 
ment than  his  better-known  brother,  B.  F.  Wade,  he  had  all  of 
the  latter's  dogged  persistence  and  personal  courage  ;  and  from 
this  time  until  his  death  he  was  an  unflinching,  untiring  worker  in 
the  anti-slavery  ranks.2  J.  Hutchins,  a  Democratic  convert,  was 
henceforward  a  persistent  supporter  of  the  Liberty  party  on 
the  Reserve,  and  led  local  sentiment  in  Lake  County.  Besides 
these,  a  host  of  younger  men  joined  the  party  in  this  period, 
including  Norton  Townshend,  destined  later  to  be  a  stumbling- 
block  to  Free  Soilers.  Such  a  group  of  able  men  as  Morris, 
Bailey,  Chase,  Lewis,  Wade,  and  the  rest,  could  not  be  paralleled 
or  approached  elsewhere  in  the  Northwest,  or  in  any  of  the 
Eastern  States,  except  perhaps  in  New  York  and  Massachusetts. 
If  the  Liberty  party,  with  such  advocates,  failed  to  attract 
public  notice,  the  reason  was  evidently  something  else  than 
deficient  leadership. 

In  Indiana  at  this  time  there  were  in  the  Liberty  party  several 
men  of  ability  and  self-sacrifice,  but  none  to  equal  the  Ohio 
leaders.  The  most  prominent  leaders,  perhaps,  were  S.  S.  Hard- 
ing, of  Ripley  County,  a  strong  radical  speaker,  efficient  also 
as  an  organizer ;  S.  C.  Stevens,  of  Madison  County,  an  able 
lawyer,  later  a  judge ;  and  E.  Deming,  a  lawyer,  of  Tippecanoe 
County,  the  candidate  for  Governor  in  1843.  All  of  these  men, 
as  laborers  in  a  field  as  discouraging  as  ever  offered  itself  to 
a  reformer,  deserve  no  little  credit  for  their  devotion,  courage, 
and  persistency. 

In  Michigan  we  find  the  condition  of  things  precisely  opposite 
to  that  in  Ohio.  The  Liberty  sentiment  was  strong,  the  vote 
twice  as  large  proportionally  as  that  in  Ohio ;  but  for  want  of 

1  J.  Hutchins,  in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  V.  680. 

2  A.  G.  Riddle,  in  History  of  Ashtabula  County,  Ohio,  84. 


62 


LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 


real  leadership,  in  addition  to  other  causes,  this  early  promise 
was  not  justified  by  later  events  ;  Michigan  never  produced  a 
Liberty  man  of  national  prominence  ;  its  leaders  were  as  de- 
voted as  those  of  any  other  State,  but  they  seemed  to  lack  the 
vigorous  personality  of  the  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin  leaders. 
In  the  period  1840-43,  the  most  prominent  man  in  the  State, 
overtopping  every  one  else,  was  J.  G.  Birney,  who  had  settled 
in  Saginaw  County  after  several  years  spent  mainly  in  travel- 
ling over  the  country,  agitating  and  organizing.  His  purpose 
in  going  to  Michigan  seems  to  have  been  to  retire  from  his 
labors,  and  by  farming  to  rest  himself  and  repair  his  health 
and  fortunes  with  a  view  to  the  campaign  of  1844.  Hence  he 
seemed  at  first  to  avoid  Liberty  party  work;  but  before  long 
he  found  himself  in  the  thick  of  it  and  at  the  head  of  the  move- 
ment. Dr.  A.  L.  Porter,  S.  R.  Treadwell,  C.  H.  Stewart, 
H.  Hallock,  and  S.  M.  Holmes  formed  a  coterie  of  Liberty  men 
in  Detroit  and  its  vicinity  who  well  seconded  Birney  and  on 
their  own  account  labored  to  promote  the  cause.  Unlike  the 
leaders  in  other  States,  these  Michigan  men  were  not  all  law- 
yers, and  hence  did  not  appear  very  often  as  candidates  them- 
selves ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  real  management  of  the 
party  lay  with  the  men  mentioned  above.  Stewart,  an  Irish- 
man, a  "Repealer,"  and  a  fiery  stump-speaker,  was,  after  Birney, 
the  leading  orator  at  this  time. 

In  Illinois  the  cause  of  political  abolition  had  passed  from 
such  men  as  David  Nelson  into  new  hands.  Here,  as  in  Ohio, 
there  was  a  powerful  local  sentiment  to  build  upon  ;  and  as  a 
result  the  Illinois  Liberty  party  leaders  proved  from  the  outset 
an  active,  enterprising  group.  In  some  respects  the  most 
important  of  the  Illinois  abolitionists  was  Zebina  Eastman,  for 
thirteen  years  the  editor  and  publisher  of  anti-slavery  news- 
papers. He  was  a  hard  worker,  very  earnest  and  practical  in 
both  speeches  and  writings,  but  sometimes  open  to  the  charge  of 
prosiness.  In  contrast  to  him  was  Owen  Lovejoy,  who,  having 
knelt  on  the  grave  of  his  murdered  brother,  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy, 
to  swear  eternal  enmity  to  slavery,  was  a  zealous,  persistent 
agitator,  eloquent  in  speech,  radical,  and  sometimes  bitter  to 
the  point  of  virulence,  a  man  capable  of  inspiring  the  greatest 


OTHER  LEADERS  IN  THE  NORTHWEST.  63 

respect  and  confidence  in  the  anti-slavery  men  of  the  north- 
eastern counties,  and  for  fourteen  years  the  leader  and  personi- 
fication of  Illinois  abolitionism.  F.  Collins  was  from  the  first  a 
consistent  Liberty  man,  and  from  his  business  ability  and  devo- 
tion to  the  cause  was  a  favorite  anti-slavery  candidate.  Dr.  R. 
Eells  and  C.  V.  Dyer  also  deserve  mention  as  leading  agitators, 
as  well  as  the  radical,  fiery-tongued  Ichabod  Codding,  formerly 
of  Maine  and  Connecticut,  who  in  1843  joined  the  Illinois 
forces.  In  short,  the  Liberty  men  of  the  northern  counties, 
although  not  equal  perhaps  to  the  group  of  Cincinnati  leaders, 
were  fully  the  peers  of  the  Western  Reserve  men  in  point  of 
ability  and  of  enterprise. 

In  Wisconsin,  which  had  just  begun  its  work  in  this  period, 
leaders  had  not  yet  shown  themselves.  Jacob  Ly  Brand,  Vernon 
Titchener,  an  able  lawyer,  and  S.  Hinman  were  at  this  time 
prominent,  but  later  yielded  to  the  leadership  of  others.  As 
will  be  seen  later,  the  eventual  Liberty  leaders  were  Charles 
Durkee,  of  Racine,  a  prosperous  and  extremely  popular  farmer, 
a  clear-headed  and  reliable  man ;  E.  D.  Holton,  of  Milwaukee, 
a  business  man  and  a  banker,  a  good  speaker,  and  a  fine  figure- 
head ;  S.  M.  Booth,  formerly  of  Connecticut,  later  an  editor, 
agitator,  and  leader  in  Milwaukee,  and  defendant  in  the  famous 
fugitive  slave  case  of  Ableman  v.  Booth,  a  tireless,  sharp- 
tongued  radical,  of  just  the  kind  needed  to  give  an  impetus  to 
the  anti-slavery  cause  ;  S.  D.  Hastings,  formerly  a  Liberty 
pioneer  in  Pennsylvania  ;  and  some  others  of  less  prominence. 
The  Wisconsin  leaders  were  not  men  of  such  strength  as  their 
Illinois  or  Ohio  coadjutors,  but  their  success  proved  them  fully 
equal  to  the  leaders  of  Indiana  or  of  Michigan. 

These,  then,  were  the  men  at  the  head  of  the  new  movement. 
Their  methods  were  much  the  same  as  those  of  the  old  anti- 
slavery  societies  ;  but,  owing  to  their  more  definite  immediate 
aims,  they  showed  a  more  organized  activity.  The  first  thing 
the  third-party  men  in  each  State  tried  to  do  was  to  establish  a 
paper,  for  they  well  knew  that  a  press  was  indispensable  to  their 
party's  success.  In  Ohio,  the  Philanthropist  continued  under 
Dr.  Bailey  to  be  the  organ  of  the  southwestern  counties,  and  to 


64  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

exercise  a  great  influence.1  In  1840-41  there  were  several 
attempts  to  establish  a  paper  in  Cleveland,  but  none  succeeded 
on  the  Western  Reserve  until  the  Liberty  Herald  at  Warren, 
Trumbull  County,  was  established  in  1 843.2  In  Indiana,  Arnold 
Buffum  tried  for  some  time  to  start  an  abolitionist  paper,  and 
for  a  time  published  the  Protectionist;  but  he  finally  abandoned 
the  project.  In  1841-43  the  Free  Labor  Advocate,  a  Quaker 
paper  of  New  Garden,  Wayne  County,  was  the  organ  of 
Indiana  abolitionists.  In  Michigan,  the  Michigan  Freeman 
of  Detroit  was  finally  superseded  by  the  Signal  of  Liberty, 
published  at  Ann  Arbor  in  1841.  In  Illinois,  Z.  Eastman 
started  the  Genius  of  Liberty  at  Lowell,  Lasalle  County,  in 
1841.  It  ran  until  1843,  when  the  editor  moved  to  Chicago, 
3  where,  under  the  auspices  of  the  State  society,  he  started  the 
Western  Citizen,  which  soon  became  the  organ  of  Illinois, 
Wisconsin,  and  Iowa  anti-slavery  sentiment.3  In  Wisconsin, 
after  one  attempt,  in  1844,  to  start  a  paper  at  Racine,  the 
American  Freeman  was  in  the  same  year  begun,  at  Southport 
(later  Kenosha),  with  the  aid  of  the  State  society.4  In  Iowa  no 
attempt  was  made  in  this  period  to  establish  anti-slavery  papers. 
The  policy  of  the  Liberty  party  during  these  three  years  was 
consistent  and  simple.  It  asserted  the  overmastering  impor- 
tance of  the  one  question  of  the  existence  of  slavery,  and  the 
necessity  of  bringing  about  a  separation  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment from  all  connection  with  the  institution.  It  claimed 
no  unusual  powers,  believing  that  its  sole  opportunity  of  attack- 
ing slavery  lay  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  in  the  Terri- 
tories, and  that  for  slavery  in  the  States  it  had  no  direct 
responsibility.  For  this  reason  the  Philanthropist  said  that  it 
was  incorrect  to  style  it  the  "  Abolition  Party,"  for  its  purposes 
were  not  directed  toward  abolition  anywhere  except  in  these 
two  places.5  This  caused  some  amusing  outbursts.  Said  one 

1  A  file  may  be  found  in  the  Western  Reserve  Historical  Society,  Cleve- 
land, Ohio.     See  Appendix  B,  below. 

2  Ibid. 

8  File  in  Chicago  Historical  Society. 

4  File  in  Wisconsin  Historical  Society,  Madison. 

5  Philanthropist,  Feb.  16,  1842. 


THE  PARTY  PROGRAM  AND  METHODS.  65 

correspondent  of  a  new  York  paper:  "We  are  amazed, 
astounded,  dumbfounded,  at  the  leading  article  from  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Bailey.  .  .  .  Let  us  understand  each  other.  Where  are 
we?  ...  We  look  upon  it  as  a  direct  and  bold  attempt  to  sell 
the  abolitionists  of  Ohio  to  one  of  the  political  parties,  and  we 
cry,  Beware  !  !  " l 

The  means  adopted  by  the  political  abolitionists  to  gain  their  / 
end,  was  the  building  up  of  a  new  party  whose  sole  purpose 
should  be  to  urge  the  separation  of  the  national  government 
from  slavery.  This  party  was  to  remain  absolutely  distinct  and 
separate  from  all  pre-existing  organizations,  indifferent  alike  to 
Whig  and  Democrat;  it  was  to  nominate  and  vote  for  those 
only  who  accepted  in  detail  all  its  tenets  in  regard  to  slavery 
and  party  action ;  and,  for  gaining  political  success,  it  was  to 
rely  simply  and  solely  upon  the  presentation  of  its  principles 
to  the  people.  The  adoption  of  such  a  course  was  inevitable 
after  the  reaction  from  the  non-partisan  questioning  expedient 
of  1830-39,  and  the  consequent  loss  of  all  faith  in  the  possibility 
of  reforming  the  old  parties  ;  but  the  alternative  now  chosen  by 
the  Liberty  party  presented  several  difficulties  equally  grave  with 
those  avoided.  If  the  old  method  left  the  anti-slavery  voters 
at  the  mercy  of  the  nominating  conventions  of  the  old  parties, 
which  seldom  resulted  in  the  presentation  of  a  man  whom  they 
could  fully  trust,  it  did  allow  them  a  direct  influence  on  the 
results  of  elections.  The  Liberty-party  methods,  on  the  con- 
trary, prevented  anti-slavery  voters  from  securing  any  represen- 
tation or  from  directly  influencing  the  results  of  elections,  until 
they  were,  in  any  given  district,  more  numerous  than  either  of 
the  opposing  parties.  Practically,  the  only  hope  of  success 
for  Liberty  men  lay  in  the  possibility  that  Whigs  or  Democrats 
would  unite  with  them  in  nominating  a  Liberty  man,  a  contin- 
gency extremely  unlikely  to  happen.  The  political  self-efface- 
ment required  in  joining  the  new  party  was  beyond  the  reach 
of  many  who  sympathized  with  its  doctrines,  and  hence  its 
growth  was  slow. 

Moreover,  the  new  party  had  to  meet  a  still  more  fatal  diffi- 
culty, in  that  it  was  unable  to  convince  people  that  the  slavery 

1  Philanthropist,  March  16,  1842. 
5 


66  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

question  was  at  the  time  paramount  to  all  others.  In  1840-43  the 
bank  struggle  was  in  its  expiring  agonies,  and  the  tariff  question 
was  hotly  debated  in  Congress :  to  the  eyes  of  most  people  these 
seemed  the  real  issues.  Slavery  was  just  what  it  had  been  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Union ;  though  not  attractive  to  a  farmer  of 
northern  Indiana  or  Ohio,  it  was  certainly  not  a  grievance  with 
him ;  and  attacks  disturbing  the  status  quo  seemed  unnecessary, 
if  not  dangerous.  Had  either  of  the  old  parties  adopted  an  anti- 
slavery  plank,  many  of  their  adherents  would  have  acquiesced ; 
so  long  as  this  was  not  done,  the  anti-slavery  platform  of  the 
Liberty  party,  devoid  of  reference  to  tariff,  bank,  public  lands, 
internal  improvements,  or  any  of  the  commonplaces  of  politics, 
was  not  likely  to  prove  attractive.  The  "  one  idea  party,"  as  it 
was  commonly  called,  was  trying  to  force  an  issue,  —  almost  to 
create  one. 

During  this  period  the  old  parties  and  their  organs  at  first 
said  little  about  their  new  opponents.  In  1840,  as  we  have 
seen,  there  had  been  occasional  outbursts  of  condemnation; 
but  after  the  election  the  party  papers  either  ceased  to  notice 
the  new  organization,  or  dismissed  it  with  a  few  contemp- 
tuous words.  During  the  whole  period  of  1841-43,  Democratic 
men  and  newspapers,  whenever  they  spoke  of  abolition,  gen- 
erally condemned  it.  Now  and  then  they  went  to  considerable 
lengths,  as  in  the  following  outburst  of  the  Madison  (Wisconsin) 
Democrat:  "  It  is  quite  apparent  that  these  people  as  a  political 
party  will  soon  pass  away.  .  .  .  Providence  has  doomed  them 
to  that  certain  fate  which  in  an  intelligent  age  and  among  an 
honest  people  must  sooner  or  later  overtake  all  political  factions 
whose  existence  and  support  depend  upon  ignorance  and  hypoc- 
risy. .  .  .  We  firmly  believe  Providence  decreed  that  the  white 
race  should  guard  and  protect,  clothe  and  feed  the  negro  race, 
and  that  the  latter  should  be  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of 
water  for  those  who  feed  and  protect  them.  God  has  made  the 
two  races  so  distinct  that  on  earth  they  can  never  be  equal."  ] 
Such  language  could  not  hurt  the  Liberty  party  ;  in  fact,  it  was 
calculated  rather  to  help  it;  and  the  Liberty  newspapers  and 
speakers  took  comparatively  little  notice  of  the  Democrats. 

i  Oct.  12,  1843. 


ATTITUDE   OF  THE   OLD  PARTIES.  6/ 

Between  the  Whig  and  Liberty  parties  in  the  Northwest,  how-, 
ever,  the  case  was  quite  different.  Each  recognized  in  the  other! 
a  dangerous  antagonist;  the  success  of  the  Whigs  was  im- 
perilled by  third-party  organization ;  the  very  existence  of  the 
Liberty  party  was  endangered  by  the  Whig  position.  When 
the  Liberty  party  rose  out  of  the  decay  of  the  old  anti-slavery 
society  movement,  the  majority  of  those  abolitionists  who  re- 
fused to  follow  Birney  went  into  the  Whig  party,  claiming  that 
in  so  doing  they  were  fully  as  desirous  to  help  the  cause  as  were 
the  Liberty  men.  Some,  in  their  revulsion  of  feeling  after 
1841-42,  returned  to  the  third-party  ranks,  furnishing  probably 
most  of  the  increase  in  the  Liberty  vote  ;  but  the  majority  con- 
tinued to  adhere  to  the  party  of  Clay,  Webster,  and  Adams  ;  and 
the  result  wa^s  a  bitterness  between  the  anti-slavery  Whigs  and 
the  Liberty  men  which  very  largely  occupied  the  interest  and  the 
energies  of  the  latter.  Some  of  the  Whig  opinions  of  1840  have 
been  quoted  ;  the  main  purport  of  them  was  that  the  Whig  party 
was  really  opposed  to  slavery,  and  that  the  Liberty  party,  by 
drawing  from  the  Whig  ranks,  was  wasting  its  vote  and  was 
virtually  electing  pro-slavery  Democrats.  In  the  period  under 
discussion  such  expressions  occurred  with  increasing  frequency 
as  time  went  on.  At  every  election  the  cry  was  repeated,  in 
the  words  of  the  Detroit  Advertiser :  "  Let  every  Whig  aboli- 
tionist remember  that  every  vote  cast  for  the  third  party  is  in 
effect,  if  not  in  intention,  cast  for  the  locofoco  ticket." l 

The  growth  of  the  Liberty  party  in  this  period  had  no  effect 
upon  the  legislation  of  the  Northwest.  We  find  the  southern 
section  of  the  three  Ohio  River  States  still  dominant  in  the  State 
'government ;  and  the  same  expressions  of  disgust  at  abolition 
and  of  dislike  for  the  negro.  In  Ohio  a  Whig  legislature  did, 
it  is  true,  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1839;  but  efforts 
made  at  the  same  time  to  repeal  the  Black  Laws  met  with 
crushing  defeat.  In  February,  1842,  resolutions  were  adopted 
denouncing  John  Quincy  Adams  for  presenting  a  petition  for 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union.2  In  1843  the  House  of  the  Illinois 
legislature,  composed  mainly  of  natives  of  the  slave-holding 

1  Nov.  n,  1842. 

2  Philanthropist,  Feb.  9,  1842  ;  Laws  of  Ohio  (1841-42),  213. 


68  LIBERTY  PARTY  ORGANIZED. 

States,  signalized  itself  by  adopting  resolutions  which  from  any 
point  of  view  can  be  considered  only  humiliating.  The  pre- 
amble stated  that  the  distributions  of  public  land  were  unduly 
favorable  to  the  South,  which  would  not  consent  to  any  change 
unless  it  received  some  concession;  that  the  legislature  of 
Illinois  "viewed  with  deepest  concern  the  continual  increase 
of  desertion  of  the  slaves  of  our  brethren  of  the  slave-holding 
States,"  and  thought  that  measures  to  check  the  evil  should  be 
taken.  Therefore,  it  recommended  to  the  States  of  Louisiana, 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  Missouri, 
Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Michigan  to  meet  in  convention  at  Jones- 
borough,  Illinois,  on  July  4,  to  make  arrangements  in  regard  to 
the  public  lands  and  in  regard  to  a  new  fugitive-slave  law.1 

With  the  year  1843  the  formative  period  of  the  Liberty  party 
was  complete.  Its  leaders  had  done  their  best;  its  newspapers 
had  cried  aloud  and  spared  not ;  its  lecturers  had  traversed  all 
the  States ;  at  three  elections  all  the  faithful  had  cast  their  votes 
unflinchingly  for  men  whom  they  knew  they  could  not  elect; 
and  still  the  party  remained  diminutive,  almost  insignificant. 
The  experiment  of  forcing  an  issue  upon  an  indifferent  people 
had  been  tried,  and,  as  always,  it  had  proved  futile. 

1  National  Era,  June  3,  1847. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE   LIBERTY   MEN   HOLD   THE   BALANCE   OF   POWER. 

1843-1845. 

IN  the  year  of  the  national  election  of  1844,  the  Liberty  party 
of  the  United  States  suddenly  found  itself  in  the  presence  of  a 
new  and  pressing  issue,  in  the  outcome  of  which  it  was  vitally 
interested.  The  annexation  of  Texas  had  been  since  1836  the 
subject  of  intrigue,  but  in  this  year  for  the  first  time  it  loomed 
up  as  a  probable  event.  In  the  winter  of  1843-4  it  became 
evident  that  while  the  South  almost  as  a  unit  was  in  favor  of 
annexation,  the  two  old  organizations,  in  the  Northern  States 
at  least,  seemed  inclined  to  divide  upon  this  question.  There 
was  no  need  for  the  Liberty  party  to  force  or  to  create  an  issue ; 
there  stood  one,  threatening,  unavoidable.  How  were  they  to 
meet  it? 

Pursuant  to  a  resolution  adopted  at  that  New  York  conven- 
tion of  1841  which  had  nominated  Birney  and  Morris,  the 
Liberty  party,  after  the  elections  of  1843,  met  in  national  con- 
vention at  Buffalo.  At  the  Ohio  Liberty  Convention  in  Janu- 
ary, 1843,  Morris  had  withdrawn  from  the  nomination,  feeling 
that,  as  so  many  able  and  leading  men  had  joined  the  cause 
since  the  spring  of  1841,  it  would  be  only  fair  to  allow  the  party 
to  choose  one  of  them,  if  it  thought  politic  or  desirable.  The 
business  before  the  convention,  then,  consisted  in  filling  the 
vacancy  caused  by  Morris's  resignation  and  in  organizing  the 
party  for  the  campaign  of  1844  ;  and  for  the  first  time  was  seen 
a  really  national,  or  at  least  a  Northern,  political  anti-slavery 
gathering.  No  longer  was  the  management,  as  in  1841,  almost 
entirely  in  the  hands  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts  men ;  for 


?0  BALANCE  OF  POWER. 

the  Western  delegates  showed  on  the  whole  greater  distinction 
than  did  the  older  leaders  of  the  cause.  The  Ohio  constellation 
in  particular  took  the  lead  :  Leicester  King  presided  ;  Samuel 
Lewis  was  a  vice-president,  speaking  often  with  great  effect ; 
and  Chase  drew  up  the  resolutions.  Among  other  Northwest- 
ern men  those  from  Illinois  were  prominent,  C.  V.  Dyer  being 
a  vice-president,  and  Owen  Lovejoy  a  secretary.  Regular  pro- 
cedure was  adopted,  modelled  on  that  of  the  Whig  national 
conventions.  Birney  and  Morris  were  unanimously  renominated 
with  great  enthusiasm ;  a  long  series  of  well-written  resolutions 
embodying  the  party  creed  was  adopted  ;  and  the  convention 
adjourned  with  cheerfulness,  if  not  with  all  the  high  hopes  that 
had  been  cherished  in  1841.  An  interesting  incident  was  the 
appearance  in  the  convention  of  Stephen  S.  Foster  and  Abby 
Kelly,  of  the  Garrisonian  or  non-resistant  abolitionists,  who  made 
various  remarks,  partly  conciliatory  and  partly  otherwise,  until 
the  patience  of  the  members  was  exhausted,  and  the  zealous 
Abby  Kelly  was  with  difficulty  silenced.1 

The  Liberty  party,  then,  in  the  opening  of  1844  had  its  Presi- 
dential ticket  in  the  field,  but  had  no  statement  in  its  platform 
in  regard  to  Texas  ;  for  at  the  time  the  platform  was  adopted 
that  question  had  not  risen  into  prominence.  In  January  and 
February  the  local  Liberty  organizations  started  in  on  the  long 
campaign,  calling  conventions,  passing  resolutions,  and,  in  gen- 
eral, continuing  the  processes  used  in  the  three  preceding  years. 
They  condemned  both  the  old  parties,  urged  the  necessity  of 
separating  the  national  government  from  slavery,  and  reiter- 
ated the  usual  arguments,  now  beginning  to  be  familiar.  Pres- 
ently the  Texas  matter  began  to  come  into  view ;  and,  as  the 
year  wore  on,  the  fact  grew  more  and  more  evident  that  Demo- 
crats and  slave-holders  favored  annexation  and  Whigs  opposed 
it.  This  condition  of  things  did  not,  however,  suggest  to  the 
Liberty  party  any  alteration  in  the  line  of  conduct  which  they 
had  been  pursuing.  Though  the  Whigs  and  Democrats  were 
divided  over  the  slavery  issue,  how  did  that  concern  the  Liberty 
party?  The  Whigs,  on  the  contrary,  thought  that  it  concerned 

1  For  the  Liberty  convention  of  1843,  see  Emancipator,  Sept.  7,  14,  1843; 
Albany  Patriot ',  Sept.  12,  1843;  R-  B-  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  300. 


ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS   THREATENED.  7 1 

the  Liberty  party  very  closely  whether  or  not  Texas  were  an- 
nexed ;  and  in  the  spring  and  early  summer  of  1844  they  began 
with  a  vehemence  hitherto  unknown  to  urge  upon  abolitionists 
that  the  only  way  to  keep  Texas  out  was  to  vote  the  Whig 
ticket  for  Presidential,  Congressional,  and  State  offices.  'After 
Polk  was  nominated,  and  it  became  still  more  evident  that  the 
Democratic  party  was  committed  to  annexation,  their  appeals 
and  arguments  came  with  increasing  fervor.  "  Friends,  Chris- 
tians, honest  men,"  said  the  Indiana  State  Journal,  "  how  can 
you,  by  throwing  away  your  votes,  hazard  the  election  of  Texas 
and  slavery  men  to  the  legislature  from  this  county?  Our  op- 
ponents ...  are  tickled  to  death  with  the  prospect  of  thus  using 
you  as  tools.  Shall  it  be  done?  Will  you  minister  to  their 
success?  Ponder  on  these  things."1 

The  abolitionists  were  forced  to  ponder,  particularly  those 
who  had  been  Whigs  in  1840.  The  exigency  seemed  pressing, 
but  there  was  no  provision  for  anything  of  the  sort  in  the 
Liberty  programme.  All  their  training  in  the  years  1841-43 
bade  them  to  ignore  or  to  condemn  the  old  parties,  and  to  scorn 
as  a  temptation  of  Satan  the  idea  of  voting  for  a  Whig,  even 
though  an  anti-slavery  man,  unless  he  were  also  an  abolitionist 
in  good  standing  and  already  a  Liberty  nominee.  Yet  there 
stood  Texas,  a  whole  slave  empire  in  itself,  waiting  only  the 
election  of  a  Democratic  President  and  Congress  in  order  to  be 
annexed.  So  long  as  there  was  any  hope  of  preventing  this 
step  by  direct  action,  to  vote  for  a  third  party  seemed,  as  the 
Whigs  said,  simply  to  minister  to  Democratic  success. 

/Had  the  Whigs  at  this  juncture  offered  a  candidate  who  by 
any  stretch  of  logic  could  be  called  anti-slavery,  the  existence  of  •' 
the  Liberty  party  would  have  been  imperilled ;  but  the  Whigs, 
fortunately  for  the  Liberty  men  and  unfortunately  for  them- 
selves, had  at  the  head  of  their  ticket  the  one  man  least  likely 
to  attract  abolition  votes.  In  Henry  Clay,  the  idol  of  Whigs 
North  and  South,  the  abolitionists  could  not  find  a  redeeming 
trait  He  was  himself  a  slave-holder,  a  fact  which,  according  to 
the  Liberty  creed,  hopelessly  disqualified  him.  Moreover,  for 
seven  years  he  had  publicly  deprecated  their  aims,  and  ridiculed 

1  Aug.  3,  1844. 


72  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

and  condemned  their  methods.  His  only  possible  claim  to  their 
support  was  his  avowed  opposition  to  Texas  annexation ;  and 
this  in  the  summer  of  1844  he  destroyed  by  his  famous  Alabama 
letter,  saying  that  he  should  "  be  glad  to  see  it  annexed  .  .  . 
on  honorable  terms."  In  spite  of  these  patent  facts,  the  Whig 
appeals  for  Liberty  support  continued  so  vigorous,  and  the 
exigency  seemed  so  pressing,  that  desertions  from  the  Liberty 
ranks  began,  and  the  third-party  leaders  became  alarmed.  And 
now  the  least  lovely  traits  of  the  political  abolitionists  came  into 
view :  their  insistence  that  a  candidate  completely  conform  to 
their  creed ;  their  mastery  of  the  art  of  exasperating  abuse.  To 
prove  that  Clay  was  no  abolitionist  was  easy;  to  show  that 
he  was  unsound  on  the  question  of  Texas  was  not  difficult;  but 
with  this  the  Liberty  men  were  by  no  means  satisfied.  They 
attacked  him  on  altogether  irrelevant  grounds,  impugning  his 
personal  character  as  that  of  a  gambler  and  a  duelist,  and  em- 
ploying the  old-time  anti-slavery  language  in  calling  him  a  "man- 
stealer"  because  he  held  slaves.  The  Ohio  State  Convention 
at  Akron,  June  6,  adopted  a  resolution  offered  by  Edward  Wade, 
that "  no  law-abiding  citizen  can  support  Mr.  Clay  for  President, 
because  he  is  a  duelist."1  When  excited,  the  Liberty  men 
sometimes  went  beyond  all  bounds  of  prudence.  M.  R.  Hull,  of 
Indianapolis,  for  example,  having  been  mobbed  by  a  Whig 
crowd,  published  a  letter  in  a  Democratic  paper  saying:  "This 
is  the  party  whose  leader  is  a  gambler,  a  man-stealer  and  a  duel- 
ist; this  is  the  party,  with  all  their  bitter,  bloody,  burning  out- 
rages on  abolitionists,  that  has  the  impudence  to  call  on  Liberty 
men  to  support  their  gambling,  dueling,  negro-robbing  chief."2 
Devotion  to  Henry  Clay  was  almost  a  cardinal  point  in  the 
Whig  creed;  they  could  hear  their  party  and  their  platform 
abused,  but  attacks  on  Clay  they  could  not  stand.  As  an  indig- 
nant anti-slavery  man  had  written  to  the  Philanthropist  in  1842  : 
"  I  think  too  much  of  Henry  Clay  to  longer  support  a  paper 
that  abuses  him  as  much  as  you  do."3  Consequently  these 
bitter  Liberty  attacks  on  Clay's  character  drove  the  Whigs 

1  Warren  Liberty  Herald,  June  12,  1844. 

2  Indianapolis  Sentinel,  Sept.  5,  1844. 
*  Philanthropist,  Sept.  17,  1842. 


CONTROVERSY  WITH  THE    WHIGS.  73 

simply  to  madness.  Argument  vanished  in  a  flood  of  mutual 
invective. 

Meanwhile  in  the  Northwest  the  Liberty  forces  had  been  for 
some  months  preparing  for  the  election.  In  Ohio,  on  February 
7,  a  State  Convention  in  Columbus,  with  J.  H.  Paine  presiding, 
adopted  a  long  series  of  resolutions,  appointed  Presidential  elec- 
tors, and  nominated  Leicester  King  for  Governor.  One  hundred 
and  sixteen  delegates  were  present,  representing  all  parts  of  the 
State.  Their  temper  is  shown  by  one  of  the  resolutions :  "  That 
Liberty  men  should  .  .  .  suffer  no  election,  local  or  general,  to 
go  by  without  nominations  and  a  struggle;  our  constables  and 
justices  of  the  peace,  our  trustees,  clerks  of  townships,  school 
directors,  our  judges,  sheriffs,  coroners,  and  clerks  of  courts, 
our  representatives  and  senators  in  the  legislature  and  in  Con- 
gress, our  Governor,  President  and  Vice-President  and  all  the 
other  officers  of  our  State  and  National  Government  should  be 
Liberty  men."  l  From  this  time  on,  not  a  week  passed  without 
Liberty  meetings  somewhere  in  the  State ;  and  in  June  a  regular 
campaign  began,  with  stumping  tours  in  the  southwest  and  on 
the  Reserve.  King  was  in  the  field  with  Brisbane,  Sutliff,  Morris, 
Wade,  Chase,  and  William  Birney;  and  by  the  end  of  the 
summer,  as  the  time  for  the  October  State  election  approached, 
the  Liberty  party  of  Ohio  was  better  organized  than  ever  before. 

In  Indiana  a  State  Convention,  on  May  30,  nominated  electors, 
and  adopted  measures  to  circulate  a  quantity  of  anti-slavery 
literature.  The  calm  and  undisturbed  course  which  third-party 
men  had  held,  when  left  to  themselves  by  the  old  parties,  was 
now  interrupted,  and  the  conflict  of  1840  returned.  In  every 
county  where  Liberty  men  were  strong,  Whig  candidates  made 
direct  appeals  for  their  votes.  In  the  words  of  the  Democratic 
State  Sentinel,  "The  stump  orators  made  speeches  which  the 
abolitionists  themselves  declared  were  up  and  down  abolition 
speeches  in  everything  but  voting  for  Henry  Clay."  2  At  the 
Liberty  State  Convention,  the  same  Mr.  Rariden  who  four  years 
before  had  played  a  prominent  part  in  preventing  the  Indiana 
State  Convention  from  ratifying  the  nomination  of  Birney,  now 

1  Warren  Liberty  Herald,  Feb.  22,  1844. 

2  Indianapolis  Sentinel,  Aug.  15,  1844. 


74  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

reappeared,  and  spoke  twice  urging  Liberty  men  to  support 
Clay.1  Consequently  the  Liberty  vote  in  the  Indiana  State 
election  in  August  showed  the  effect  of  this  concerted  Whig 
attack.  As  the  Free  Labor  Advocate  said,  "  The  new-born  zeal 
of  the  Whig  orators  against  the  annexation  of  Texas  had  made 
a  strong  impression  in  their  favor  .  .  .  and  the  argument  in 
favor  of  voting  wrong  this  one  time  ...  in  order  to  save  the 
country  prevailed."2  During  the  interval  between  this  and  the 
national  election  the  abolitionists  of  Indiana  made  strong  efforts 
to  act  together ;  but,  although  matters  were  somewhat  improved 
by  November,  their  organization  was  still  very  incomplete. 

In  Michigan  the  Liberty  organization  created  by  Birney  and 
his  sympathizers  in  the  preceding  year  was  working  effectively. 
The  usual  State  and  local  conventions  met,  and  by  the  middle 
of  the  summer  a  full  ticket  for  Congress  and  the  legislature 
was  in  nomination.  The  State  campaign  became  active  when 
Birney  took  the  stump  in  July  and  by  a  joint  debate  with 
Z.  Platt  in  Detroit  excited  wide-spread  interest.3  The  differ- 
ences between  Whigs  and  Liberty  men  reached  an  acute  stage 
in  Michigan  sooner  than  in  any  other  Northwestern  State ;  and 
by  July  the  newspaper  controversy  became  acrimonious  to  a 
degree,  which  gave  intense  delight  to  the  Democrats. 
*  In  Illinois  we  find  much  the  same  state  of  things.4  The 
northern  counties,  hotbeds  of  anti-slavery  feeling,  were  busy 
from  early  in  the  year;  and  Lovejoy,  Codding,  Eastman,  Dyer, 
and  the  others  by  their  activity  brought  about  a  distinct  increase 
in  the  Liberty  vote  at  the  State  election  in  August.  In  the 
Fourth  District  the  vote  was  1,408,  as  against  1,174  in  1843,  and 
the  other  returns  were  said  by  the  Western  Citizen  to  be  equally 
encouraging.5  The  Illinois  leaders,  Lovejoy  and  Codding,  were 
fortunately  of  a  temperament  to  be  exhilarated  rather  than 
discouraged  by  the  Whig  abuse  poured  out  in  the  summer 
of  this  year. 

i  Emancipator,  July  3,  1844.  2  Quoted  Ibid.,  Aug.  28,  1844. 

8  Ibid.,  Aug.  14,  1844. 

4  Western  Citizen,  April  18,  June  20,  1.844. 

5  Ibid.,  July  4,  Aug.  8,  1844;  quoted  in  Emancipator,  July  23,  Aug.  19, 
1844. 


LOCAL   ORGANIZATION  IN  1844-  75 

In  Iowa  Territory  there  was  as  yet  little  anti-slavery  feeling, 
and  no  attempt  at  Liberty  organization ;  but  in  Wisconsin  the 
methods  of  Illinois  were  being  imitated.  The  Liberty  men  of 
that  Territory  could  not  participate  in  the  national  election,  nor 
even  in  any  general  State  election ;  but  they  ran  local  tickets 
with  considerable  vigor,  and  were  extremely  active  in  organiz- 
ing. Their  vote  as  returned  by  the  Western  Citizen  was  at  least 
450,  and  probably  more,  —  a  substantial  increase  over  the  152  of 
the  preceding  year.1  The  Territorial  Anti-Slavery  Association, 
in  its  annual  report,  pointed  with  pride  to  the  fact  that  "  in 
Walworth  County  the  Whigs  ascribe  their  defeat  in  the  election 
of  county  officers  to  the  influence  of  the  Liberty  Party."2 

By  October,  then,  the  Liberty  men  in  all  the  Northwestern 
States  were  hotly  engaged  in  the  fiercest  conflict  which  they 
had  as  yet  experienced,  their  attitude  on  the  Texas  issue  being 
well  illustrated  by  a  quotation  from  the  Michigan  Signal  of 
Liberty:  "  Liberty  men  !  Now  is  the  time  to  act !  Stand  forth 
for  your  principles  and  show  that  you  are  men.  .  .  .  Polk  is  for 
immediate  annexation,  Clay  for  it  as  soon  as  it  can  be  had  upon 
such  terms  as  he  may  think  peaceable,  etc.  The  question  is 
not,  shall  Texas  be  annexed?  but  when  and  how  shall  it  be 
annexed?  What  have  Liberty  men  to  do  with  this  issue?  Let 
the  pro-slavery  parties  settle  it  between  themselves."  3 

In  opposition  to  this  view,  the  appeals  of  Whigs  grew  more 
urgent,  and  their  denunciations  sharper,  fairly  drowning  in  a 
flood  of  vituperation  the  Liberty  replies,  bitter  and  violent  as 
they  became.  Here  and  there  in  the  Liberty  ranks  appeared 
signs  of  weakening,  which  were  loudly  trumpeted  by  Whig 
papers  to  all  corners  of  the  country.  In  Michigan  and  in  New 
York  manifestoes  appeared  signed  by  anti-slavery  men,  announc- 
ing their  reluctant  purpose  of  supporting  Clay  on  the  Texas 
issue;4  but  although  here  and  in  Indiana  the  third  party  sus- 
tained some  losses,  Ohio  abolitionists  held  firm,  and  in  the 
October  election  increased  their  vote  even  more  than  Illinois 

1  Emancipator,  Nov.  20,  1844. 

2  Racine,  Wisconsin  JEgis,  March  2,  1844. 

8  Quoted  Detroit  Free  Press,  Sept.  12,  1844. 
4  Cincinnati  Gazette,  Oct.  i,  1844. 


76  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

had  done  in  August.  The  official  return  was  as  follows :  Demo- 
cratic—  Tod,  146,461;  Whig — Hartley,  147,738;  Liberty  — 
King,  8,41 1.1  Again,  as  in  1842,  the  Liberty  men  showed  that 
they  held  the  balance  of  power. 

In  October,  however,  there  came  to  light  in  Michigan  a  most 
remarkable  state  of  things,  which,  more  than  any  possible  Whig 
arguments  or  abuse,  damaged  the  Liberty  cause.  It  was 
learned  that,  on  September  28,  just  after  starting  on  an 
electioneering  tour  to  the  East,  James  G.  Birney,  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  party  and  its  candidate  for  President,  had  been 
nominated  for  the  legislature  by  a  Democratic  convention. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  opportune  for  the  Whigs. 
In  their  indignation  at  Liberty  obstinacy,  they  had  been  crying 
that  nothing  could  explain  it  except  a  bargain  between  Birney 
and  Polk;  and  here  was  an  incident  that  seemed  to  confirm 
their  claim.  As  soon  as  the  discovery  was  reported  to  the 
Michigan  Whig  Committee,  then  under  the  lead  of  Jacob  M. 
Howard,  the  news  was  sent  all  over  the  country.  "  There  is 
no  earthly  doubt  of  this,"  said  Howard,  in  a  letter  to  R.  C. 
Winthrop,  of  Massachusetts.  "  Use  it  then !  It  will  influence 
20,000  votes  in  the  North."  2  The  news,  accompanied  by  sting- 
ing comments,  appeared  in  every  Whig  paper,  followed  often 
by  a  crop  of  stories  regarding  statements  made  by  Birney 
to  the  effect  that  he  preferred  Polk  to  Clay,  and  admissions  that 
he  favored  free  trade  and,  most  incredible  of  all,  the  annexation 
of  Texas !  3 

The  effect  on  Liberty  men  was  stupefying.  In  spite  of  all 
Birney's  sacrifices,  his  labors,  his  repeated  condemnations  of 
Democrats  and  of  slavery,  it  seemed  to  many  as  if  he  had  actu- 
ally played  them  false,  or  had  at  least  committed  a  stupendous 
piece  of  folly.  Birney  himself  hastened  to  explain,  though 
1  Whig  Almanac,  1845.  These  published  figures  are  almost  certainly  in- 
complete, for  there  are  no  returns  for  Carroll,  Cuyahoga,  or  Highland  County, 
and  but  16  for  Harrison  County;  whereas  these  had  given  715  votes  in  1843. 
A  later  version,  also  official,  makes  a  total  of  8,898,  giving  Harrison  216 
Liberty  votes,  and  Cuyahoga  364;  but  even  this  count  seems  inadequate. 
The  Liberty  vote  was  probably  over  9,000. 

2  Emancipator,  Oct.  21,  1844. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  10,  19,  26,  Nov.  2,  1844. 


THE    WHIGS  ATTACK  BIRNEY.  77 

not  to  satisfy.  In  letters  to  the  New  York  Tribune  and  to  the 
Liberty  party  at  large  he  made  it  evident  that  the  nomination 
was  simply  the  result  of  local  questions  in  Saginaw  County;  that 
the  Democrats  in  nominating  him  had  done  so  without  regard 
to  anything  but  a  desire  to  break  up  a  local  ring  which  had  been 
mismanaging  affairs ;  and  that  he  himself,  when  he  gave  them 
permission  to  nominate  him,  regarded  the  nomination  as  com- 
ing from  the  people  and  not  from  any  party.1  The  fact 
remained,  however,  that  it  was  an  extraordinary  performance  on 
his  part,  particularly  since  the  Michigan  State  Liberty  Conven- 
tion, which  nominated  him  for  Governor  in  1843,  had  resolved: 
"  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention  great  injury  will  be 
suffered  by  the  Liberty  party  if  the  members  permit  their 
names  to  be  placed  on  the  tickets  of  other  parties  unless  they 
are  taken  up  by  them  distinctly  as  Liberty  men,  and  this  ought 
to  be  ascertained  by  the  fact  of  their  nomination  then  existing 
on  the  Liberty  party  ticket."2 

Birney  denied  the  accuracy  of  the  stories  regarding  his 
alleged  preference  for  Polk,  but  admitted  the  truth  of  their 
main  contention,  namely,  that  he  preferred  Polk  to  Clay.  The 
reasons  which  he  assigned  were,  that  Clay,  as  well  as  Polk,  had 
expressed  himself  in  favor  of  annexation,  and  that  Clay  could 
and  would  lead  his  party,  while  Polk  was  incompetent  to  lead 
his.  The  question  suggests  itself  at  once  whether  Polk's  party 
needed  any  leading  to  bring  it  to  favor  annexation.  Birney's 
position  was  not  perfectly  logical,  and  his  statement  was  a  piece 
of  very  unnecessary  frankness;  for  the  Whig  papers,  in  the  heat 
of  the  campaign,  brushed  aside  without  ceremony  his  fine  dis- 
tinctions, as  weak  attempts  to  justify  Democratic  leanings;  and 
they  continued  to  repeat  phrases  taken  from  the  affidavit  of 
one  Driggs,  who  had  been  sent  by  the  Michigan  Whig  Com- 
mittee to  investigate  the  matter  and  to  work  up  the  case  against 
Birney,  and  who  reported  that  the  latter  "  had  sought  the  nomi- 
nation, .  .  .  expressed  himself  a  Democrat,  [and]  had  promised 
if  elected  not  to  agitate  the  slavery  question  in  the  legislature."  3 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  10,  19,  1844;  Emancipator,  Oct.  15,  1844. 

2  Emancipator,  March  16,  1843. 

8  Driggs's  affidavit,  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  26,  1844. 


78  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

Seasoned  abolitionists  knew  Birney  too  well  to  heed  the  uproar  ; 
but  recent  recruits  became  doubtful.  In  Ohio,  Giddings,  always 
a  tower  of  strength  to  the  Whig  party,  spoke  with  great  effect, 
never  missing  an  opportunity  to  excoriate  Birney;  until,  in 
alarm  at  the  havoc  that  he  was  making  among  the  abolitionists 
of  that  region,  the  Ohio  Liberty  Committee  issued  an  address 
written  by  Chase  begging  Liberty  men  to  stand  firm  and  to  trust 
in  Birney :  "  To  say  that  such  a  man  has  united  himself  to  the 
Democratic  party,  bound  as  it  is  at  present  by  the  atrocious 
resolutions  of  the  Baltimore  Convention,  is  base  beyond  meas- 
ure. .  .  .  Reject  with  scorn  this  gross  libel.  .  .  .  We  entreat 
you  to  stand  !  For  God  and  Duty  stand  !  Stand  this  once  !  "l 
Perhaps  the  Liberty  men  would  have  stood,  had  matters 
rested  at  this  stage  ;  but  suddenly,  one  or  two  days  before  the 
national  election,  there  appeared  in  most  of  the  Northern  States 
a  copy  of  a  letter  written  by  Birney  to  J.  B.  Garland,  of  Sagi- 
naw,  sworn  to  by  Garland  himself,  and  taken  from  a  copy  of  the 
Genesee  County  Democrat  Extra  of  October  21.  In  the  letter 
Birney  concluded  to  accept  the  Democratic  county  nomination, 
authorized  Garland  to  say  that  he  was  a  Democrat  of  the  Jef- 
fersonian  school,  and  promised  if  elected  to  forego  the  agitation 
of  the  slavery  question  in  the  State  legislature.2  This  docu- 
ment, apparently  unimpeachable,  was  sprung  upon  the  country 
with  consummate  skill.  It  appeared  on  the  same  day  in  Port- 
land, Boston,  Washington,  Columbus,  Cincinnati,  and  elsewhere, 
in  other  cities  a  little  earlier,  in  Detroit,  significantly  enough, 
considerably  later.  It  was  printed  as  a  handbill  and  distributed 
by  the  Indiana  Whig  Central  Committee.3  It  was  circulated  all 
over  the  Western  Reserve,  endorsed  by  the  Ohio  Whig  Central 
Committee,4  and  carried,  as  indignant  Liberty  men  said,  "  by 
the  hands  of  deacons  and  church  members." { 

1  A.  G.  Riddle  on  J.  R.  Giddings,  in  History  of  Ashtabula  County, 
Ohio,  8 1  ;  Philanthropist,  Oct.  23,  1844. 

2  Washington  National  Intelligencer,  Nov.  2,  1844. 

8  W.  Birney,  /.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  355 ;  Indianapolis  Sentinel, 
Nov.  21,  1844. 

4  Liberty  Herald,  Nov.  6,  1844. 

6  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  Nov.  13, 1844.  In  this  year  a  daily  edition 
of  this  paper  took  the  name  Cincinnati  Herald. 


THE  GARLAND  FORGERY.  79 

Birney  was  at  this  time  travelling  westward ;  but  the  letter 
was  not  published  in  western  New  York,  —  Rochester,  Syracuse, 
and  Buffalo,  —  until  he  had  passed  by,1  and  he  did  not  see  it 
himself  until  he  reached  Painesville,  on  the  Western  Reserve. 
As  soon  as  he  read  it,  he  pronounced  it  an  utter  forgery 
throughout;2  but  it  was  too  late:  the  document  had  done  its 
work.  Following  after  his  Democratic  nomination  and  the 
flood  of  Whig  innuendo,  containing  the  very  phrases  repeated 
by  the  Whigs  and  seeming  to  confirm  them,  signed  and  sworn 
to  with  all  due  forms,  it  had  turned  hundreds  of  abolitionists 
from  Birney  to  Clay,  had  kept  hundreds  more  away  from  the 
polls,  and  had  in  New  York  and  Ohio  seriously  reduced  the 
Liberty  vote.  In  New  York  the  vote  was  1,000  less  than  in 
1843;  in  Ohio  it  was  probably  at  least  1,000  less  than  in  the 
State  election  a  month  before.3  Even  in  far-off  Illinois,  the 
Western  Citizen  reported  that  fifty  voters  in  one  county  were 
kept  from  the  polls.4 

But  argument,  appeal,  and  Garland  forgery  together,  failed  to 
save  the  Whigs  in  the  November  election.  In  spite  of  all  dis- 
tractions, enough  Liberty  men  supported  their  candidate  in  the 
State  of  New  York  alone  to  give  the  electoral  vote  to  Polk. 
Had  there  been  no  Liberty  party,  most  of  those  who  composed 
its  membership  would  probably  have  voted  for  Clay,  —  enough 
of  them,  the  Whigs  claimed,  to  make  his  election  certain. 
Whether  this  last  assertion  is  true,  it  is  of  course  impossible  to 
say  ;  but  in  any  case  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that,  had  not  Birney 
been  in  nomination,  Whig  chances  would  have  been  much 
better. 

The  Liberty  vote  in  the  country  at  large  in  this  year  amounted 
to  62,000,  showing  a  very  slight  increase  over  that  of  the  pre- 
ceding year.  In  the  Northwest  each  State  made  a  substantial 
increase  except  Ohio,  whose  decrease  from  October  we  may 

1  Detroit  Free  Press,  Dec.  15,  1844. 

2  Cincinnati  Gazette,   Nov.  5,    1844.     See  Garland's   affidavit,  Detroit 
Free  Press,  Dec.  18,  1844. 

8  For  the  Garland  forgery,  see  W.  Birney,  /.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times, 
354  seq. 

4  Emancipator,  Dec.  7,  1844. 


80  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

ascribe  in  no  small  degree  to  the  effect  of  the  Garland  forgery 
on  the  Western  Reserve.1 

The  election  of  1844  was  decisive  for  Liberty  men;  for  by 
their  own  conduct  they  had  succeeded  in  putting  out  of  their 
own  reach  all  success  along  the  line  which  they  were  pursuing. 
From  the  Democratic  party  they  had  from  the  outset  nothing 
to  hope,  since  its  strength  lay  in  the  South  and  in  the  ruder 
classes  of  the  North  and  West,  among  whom  anti-slavery 
principles  would  be  the  last  to  penetrate.  To  the  Whig  party 
alone  could  they  look;  and  now  after  1844  accessions  from 
that  quarter  were  rendered  infinitely  less  likely  than  hereto- 
fore. Liberal  people  were  repelled  by  the  intolerance  of  the 
Liberty  men  for  any  opinions  but  their  own;  practical  men 
were  displeased  by  their  adherence  to  Birney,  when  by  voting 
for  the  other  candidates  they  would  have  influenced  directly  the 
election  in  regard  to  Texas;  Old-Line  Whigs  were  disgusted 
at  their  refusal  to  accept  the  Whig  view  of  the  duty  of  anti- 
slavery  men,  and  were  enraged  beyond  control  by  their  unspar- 
ing and  bitterly  personal  condemnation  of  Clay.  In  the  opinion 
of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Whigs,  the  persistence  of  Birney 
in  running  in  1844  could  be  explained  only  on  the  theory  that 
he  was  a  Democrat  in  disguise,  subsidized  by  Polk  to  aid  the 
latter's  election.  When  the  news  of  his  nomination  by  the 
Democrats  of  Saginaw  County,  of  his  own  honest  but  ill-judged 
acceptance  of  the  name  "  Democrat"  "in  the  true  sense,"  and 
of  his  still  more  unwise  preference  for  Polk  over  Clay  were 
spread  abroad,  the  last  shadow  of  doubt  vanished,  and  from 
1844  to  the  end  of  the  Whig  party's  career  neither  Birney  nor 
the  Liberty  party  was  ever  forgiven. 

In  the  fall  of  1844  and  the  winter  of  1844-5  Whig  execrations 
fell  heavily  on  the  heads  of  the  culprits.  That  any  other 
causes  had  co-operated  to  defeat  Clay  never  entered  their  heads ; 

1  The  vote  was  as  follows  :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Liberty.  Percent. 

Ohio      .  .  .  149,11 7  I55>057  8*°5°  -027 

Indiana  .  .  70,181  67,567  2,106  .015 

Michigan  .  .  27,703  24,037  3,632  .064 

Illinois  .  .  57,920  45>528  3>57o  .033 


WHIG  HATRED   OF  THE  LIBERTY  PARTY.  8 1 

that  Clay's  own  vacillation  in  any  degree  accounted  for  his  fail- 
ure they  never  admitted :  for  upon  the  Liberty  party  alone 
they  laid  the  blame  of  their  idol's  defeat.  "  Refine  and  revise 
as  we  please,"  said  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  "  the  responsibility 
of  this  whole  matter  rests  with  the  third  party."  l  "  We  believe 
that  thousands  of  political  abolitionists,"  said  the  Chicago 
Journal,  "  if  they  had  their  own  votes  to  cast  over  again  would 
cast  them  for  Henry  Clay.  ...  If  their  mission  was  the  un- 
loosing of  the  bonds  of  the  captive,  and  the  giving  of  liberty 
to  the  slave,  they  have  proved  recreant  to  their  holy  trust. 
For,  instead  of  circumscribing  the  area  of  slavery,  they  have 
added  to  it,  ...  have  given  the  slave-holders  a  power  which 
will  prove  for  years  if  not  for  centuries  resistless.  Their  work 
has  been  surely  done,  and  a  fearful  and  awful  work  it  is." 2 
"Where's  the  Liberty  party  ?"  asked  the  Ohio  State  Journal. 
"  The  leaders  have  gone  over  to  the  Texas  and  slavery  party ; 
will  the  rank  and  file  follow?  The  next  we  shall  see  of  their 
leaders,  with  Mr.  Birney  at  their  head,  will  be  hanging  about  the 
executive  offices  at  Washington  receiving  their  pay."  3  More 
influential  in  the  Northwest  than  any  local  paper,  the  New  York 
Tribune  thus  poured  out  its  wrath :  "  You  third-party  wire- 
workers  forced  this  man  [Polk]  upon  us  instead  of  the  only 
anti-Texas  candidate  who  could  possibly  be  elected.  On  your 
guilty  heads  shall  rest  the  curses  of  unborn  generations !  Riot 
in  your  infamy  and  rejoice  in  its  triumph,  but  never  ask  us  to 
unite  with  you  in  anything."  4 

It  was  upon  Birney  himself  that  the  hatred  of  the  ultra- 
Whigs  was  especially  poured  forth.5  Their  feeling  is  best 
shown  in  a  letter  of  J.  M.  Howard,  of  Detroit,  to  Birney,  in 
the  spring  of  1845:  "Will  the  low  arts  of  the  demagogue, 

1  Aug.  22,  1844.  2  Nov.  19,  1848. 

8  Quoted  in  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Dec.  7,  1844. 

4  Nov.  28,  1844. 

6  The  Detroit  Advertiser,  for  example,  during  the  campaign,  said  that 
"there  was  no  scandal  too  low,  no  perversion  of  truth  too  glaring  for  his 
use,  ...  his  whole  speech  was  a  tissue  of  rancorous  personal  abuse,  sly  and 
unmanly  innuendo,  and  harsh  and  brutal  calumny,"  .  .  .  that  he  "  added 
cowardice  to  falsehood,"  and  was  "a  Polkat  in  the  skin  of  a  mink." — Detroit 
Advertiser,  July  n,  1844;  Emancipator,  Aug.  14,  1844. 

6 


82  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

assaults  upon  private  character,  the  petulant  whining  tone  of  a 
charlatan  who  has  been  detected  in  a  dirty  transaction  .  .  . 
will  these  miserable  follies  break  the  shackles  of  a  slave?  .  .  . 
You  well  knew  that  if  left  to  themselves  nine-tenths  of  your 
followers  would  vote  the  Whig  ticket.  .  .  .  You  knew  and  saw 
with  your  own  eyes  that  the  Democratic  party  was  anxious  that 
you  should  thus  act.  They  encouraged  you,  .  .  .  you  knew  it 
and  they  knew  it.  Talk  of  it  as  you  may  —  sneer  at  it  —  ex- 
plain —  deny  as  you  please,  this  is  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  in 
favor  of  slavery  which  ...  no  arguments  can  ever  remove  or 
shake."  l 

In  the  course  of  a  year  or  two  the  Whig  party  began  to  re- 
cover from  its  soreness  ;  but  the  bitterness  between  the  two 
parties  remained.  In  the  Northwest,  the  efforts  of  the  Michigan 
Liberty  men  to  unearth  the  forgers  of  the  Garland  letter  nour- 
ished hard  feeling.  The  history  of  this  curious  matter  is  not, 
perhaps,  worth  relating  at  length ;  but  it  should  here  be  com- 
pleted. The  Whig  papers,  after  the  election,  all  admitted  that 
the  letter  was  a  forgery,  but  they  admitted  it  often  in  the  most 
irritating  way  possible.  The  Ohio  State  Journal  remarked  on 
the  needless  folly  of  the  forgers,  "  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
evidence  of  a  coalition  between  the  leaders  of  the  Loco  and 
Liberty  parties  was  manifest  from  the  evidence  furnished  by 
Mr.  Birney  himself  in  his  letters  and  speeches."2  The  New 
York  Tribune  said  that  the  Garland  letter  was  of  questionable 
authenticity,  but  that  "  there  was  much  internal  probability  of 
the  verity  of  the  letter." 3  Several  of  the  Whig  papers,  it  is 
true,  said  that  they  hoped  the  forgers  would  be  hunted  down ; 
but  the  avowed  disposition  to  retract  promptly  and  to  act 
was*  due  probably  to  the  recent  libel  trials  of  James  Feni- 
more  Cooper,  the  outcome  of  which  led  all  newspapers  to  act 
circumspectly ;  when  the  Michigan  Liberty  Committee  tried 
to  get  evidence,  the  Whig  editors  and  leaders  obstinately 
blocked  the  way.  They  refused  to  tell  where  they  got  the  let- 

1  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  March  28,  1845. 

2  Quoted  in  Indiana  State  Journal,  Nov.  9, 1844. 
8  Nov.  2,  1844. 

4  Indiana  State  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1844. 


END   OF  THE  FORGERY  CONTROVERSY.  83 

ter,  refused  to  let  the  supposed  original  be  seen,  declined  in  any 
way  to  assist  the  Liberty  Committee,  and  covered  them  with 
abuse.  The  result  was  an  envenomed  newspaper  controversy 
in  Michigan  and  elsewhere,  ending  finally  in  the  refusal  by  the 
Whigs  to  continue  the  subject.1  The  Liberty  Committee, 
working  with  what  clews  they  could  get,  managed  to  trace  the 
forged  "Extra"  to  the  Michigan  Pontiac  Gazette  press-room, 
and  implicated  as  its  printers  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Detroit 
Advertiser,  and  one  jjtft  two  leading  Whigs.  Their  evidence, 
however,  was  not  very  strong  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  and 
the  obstinate  silence  of  the  Whigs  finally  succeeded  in  prevent- 
ing a  complete  exposure.  By  the  time  the  Emancipator,  the 
organ  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society,  felt 
able  in  1846  to  print  what  evidence  it  had,  the  matter  was 
already  lapsing  from  the  public  memory,  and  after  some  abor- 
tive libel  suits  the  whole  affair  was  suffered  to  drop.2  Jacob  M. 
Howard,  who  had  done  most  to  spread  the  forgery,  was  not 
among  those  named  as  involved  in  its  concoction,  although  the 
Liberty  Committee  would  have  been  glad  to  find  him  guilty. 
Thus  in  1846  the  last  echoes  of  the  election  of  1844  died  away; 
but  in  the  hearts  of  Henry  Clay  Whigs  its  memory  remained, 
keeping  alive  a  consuming  hatred  of  the  Liberty  party  and  of 
all  political  abolitionists. 

When  we  consider  what  the  Liberty  party  was,  how  it  had 
been  formed  and  built  up  by  years  of  hard  work,  and  what  were 
its  aims,  it  seems  not  quite  just  to  condemn  it  for  not  dis- 
solving in  1844.  Its  leaders  as  a  rule  were  neither  states- 
men nor  politicians,  but  rather  philanthropists  and  agitators ; 
and  with  such  men,  and  with  their  followers,  the  doctrine  that 
means  are  justified  by  any  end  is  not  likely  to  flourish.  The 
Liberty  party  was  formed  to  support  anti-slavery  candidates,  by 
men  whose  consciences  would  not  allow  them  to  vote  for  any 
others.  Henry  Clay  was  in  no  sense  an  anti-slavery  man,  except 

1  Detroit  Free  Press,  Dec.  15,  1844. 

2  Final  statement  in  Emancipator,  March  4,  1846;  quoted  in  Cleveland 
American,  March  18,  1846  ;  New  York  Tribune,  April  6,  1846.     W.  Birney 
(/.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  355)  thinks  that  the  forgery  was  concocted  in 
New  York.     He  offers  no  proof. 


84  BALANCE   OF  POWER. 

that  as  an  advocate  of  preserving  the  status  quo  he  was  inclined 
to  object  to  slavery  encroachments ;  and  when  his  Alabama  let- 
ter appeared,  even  this  claim  was  gone.  Had  the  Liberty  men 
voted  for  Clay  in  1844,  the  step  might  have  proved  an  act  of 
magnificent  statesmanship,  or  more  likely  a  useless  sacrifice; 
as  it  was,  they  simply  acted  consistently,  although  in  so  doing 
they  seemed  in  the  eyes  of  the  Whigs  to  wreck  their  own  cause. 
The  fault,  however,  was  Clay's,  not  theirs.  The  case  for  the 
Liberty  party  cannot  be  better  stated  than  by  Birney  himself,  in 
a  letter  to  the  New  York  Tribune,  in  1852  :  "  It  was  Mr.  Clay's 
indecision  about  the  admission  of  Texas  that  defeated  him. 
His  letters,  even  if  they  were  not  so  intended,  made  many  of  his 
friends  believe  that  he  was  undecided.  From  his  supposed 
wavering  on  the  subject  he  lost  the  votes  of  many  that  were 
opposed  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  as  well  as  those  who  were 
in  favor  of  it.  That  in  either  event  Texas  would  have  been  in 
the  Union  now  appears  very  certain  to  me,  as  I  believe  it  does 
to  most  others,  though  a  decided  party  man  might  express  him- 
self differently."  l 

1  Quoted  in  National  Era,  March  11,  1852. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

DISCOURAGEMENT   OF   THE   LIBERTY  MEN. 
1845-1847. 

THE  Liberty  party,  in  the  three  remaining  years  of  its  exist- 
ence, was  even  more  isolated  than  before  1844.  It  held  con- 
ventions, nominated  candidates,  voted  for  them,  and  continued 
to  agitate,  but  with  less  effect  than  heretofore. 

The  Liberty  work  in  Ohio  in  1845  was  chiefly  local,  the 
activity  of  the  State  Committee  being  exercised  in  stimulating 
county  and  district  conventions,  and  in  nominating  for  legisla- 
tive and  local  offices.  "  We  earnestly  recommend,"  it  said, 
"  the  nomination  of  full  Liberty  tickets  in  each  county  where 
there  are  Liberty  men  enough  to  form  a  ticket.  We  are  aware 
that  many  reasons  are  urged  why  under  peculiar  circumstances 
Liberty  men  should  make  no  nominations,  but  we  are  fully 
satisfied  that  it  is  a  bad  policy  to  pursue  such  a  course  under 
any  circumstances." 1  The  Liberty  vote  in  the  fall  seems  to 
have  been  about  the  same  as  that  in  1844,  incomplete  returns 
giving  7,954  as  against  7,449  in  the  same  counties  the  year 
before.2 

One  leader  whose  voice  had  long  been  heard  was  now  miss- 
ing. On  December  7,  1844,  ex-Senator  Thomas  Morris  died 
suddenly,  at  the  age  of  sixty-eight;  and  by  his  departure  the 
Liberty  party  lost  an  indefatigable  worker,  a  clear  thinker,  and 
a  man  of  incorruptible  courage  and  honesty.  Unfortunately 
for  his  posthumous  fame,  Morris's  modesty  was  so  great  as  to 

1  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  Aug.  6,  1845. 

2  Scattering  returns  in  Liberty  Herald,  1845,  and  in  American  Liberty 
Almanac,  1846. 


86  DISCOURAGEMENT  OF   THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

lead  him,  in  the  period  from  1841-44,  to  prefer  to  exercise  his 
talents  in  the  comparatively  humble  sphere  of  local  canvass- 
ing. He  shrank  from,  or  at  least  made  no  effort  to  retain,  the 
prominence  warranted  by  his  legislative  record  in  Ohio  and  at 
Washington,  and  allowed  men  more  eloquent,  but  of  far  less 
political  ability,  to  overshadow  him.  Although  his  age  made 
his  chosen  work  very  exhausting,  he  continued  up  to  the  day 
of  his  death,  in  spite  of  ill  health  and  family  afflictions,  to  labor 
in  his  self-appointed  sphere.  Morris's  death  was  deplored  and 
his  memory  honored  in  resolutions  of  local  and  State  societies ; 
but  a  few  years  sufficed  to  cause  him  to  be  forgotten  except 
by  Bailey,  Chase,  and  others  of  his  fellow-workers,  who  realized, 
as  Chase  said,  that  "  Thomas  Morris  was  far  beyond  the  time  in 
which  he  lived." 1 

In  Indiana,  as  in  Ohio,  there  was  at  first  a  continuation  of 
interest  into  the  winter  and  spring  of  1845.  A  new  paper  was 
started,  the  Indiana  Freeman  ;  local  conventions  nominated  can- 
didates for  Congress  and  for  township  and  county  offices ;  and 
a  State  Convention  at  Indianapolis,  on  May  30,  nominated  S.  C. 
Stevens  and  S.  S.  Harding  for  Governor  and  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor  respectively  in  the  campaign  of  1846;  but  in  August  this 
impetus,  surviving  from  1844,  began  to  die  out,  and  the  vote 
in  six  out  of  ten  districts  was  1,755,  m  counties  where  Birney 
had  received  1,975  votes.2 

In  Michigan  the  interest  in  the  controversy  over  the  Garland 
forgery  lasted  into  the  spring  of  1845.  The  Democratic  press, 
delighted  at  the  chance  to  defame  Whig  leaders,  printed  all 
Liberty  documents  in  full,  and  quoted  with  zest  every  editorial 
of  the  Signal  of  Liberty  which  condemned  Whig  leaders  and 
methods  ;  until  the  Whigs,  exhausted  with  raging  at  Birney, 
decided  to  ignore  his  existence  and  that  of  his  party  so  far  as 
possible,  a  policy  which  from  this  time  was  fairly  well  adhered 
to.  Partly  to  show  their  confidence  in  Birney,  and  partly 
because  he  was  the  natural  leader,  the  State  Liberty  Conven- 
tion, which  met  at  Marshall  on  June  9,  nominated  him  for  Gov- 
ernor. In  the  campaign  that  followed  —  if  campaign  it  can  be 

1  B.  F.  Morris,  Life  of  Thomas  Morris,  Introd.,  xi. 

2  Official  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1846. 


LOCAL  ELECTIONS  IN  1845.  87 

called  where  no  resistance  but  indifference  is  offered  by  the 
party  attacked  —  Birney's  Democratic  principles  came  out 
clearly  in  a  series  of  replies  to  questions  about  his  views  on 
State  policy.  He  disapproved  of  internal  improvements,  wished 
salaries  and  offices  reduced,  and  used  much  the  same  language 
as  that  of  the  traditional  Democratic  creed.1  He  was  at  this 
time  gradually  coming  to  the  opinion  that  the  "one  idea"  was 
not  broad  enough  for  successful  action,  but  that  a  general 
reform  party  would  stand  a  better  chance.  In  the  fall  election 
the  Liberty  vote  showed  the  same  falling  off  as  had  appeared  in 
Indiana,  the  total  amounting  only  to  3,363,  marking  a  decline  of 
269  from  the  vote  of  the  preceding  year.2 

Illinois  abolitionists,  as  they  had  surpassed  their  fellow- 
laborers  in  their  success  in  1844,  now  exceeded  them  in  their 
reaction  after  it.  In  1845  there  were  hardly  any  conventions, 
few  nominations,  and  a  decided  falling-off  in  the  Liberty  vote. 
There  are  no  general  returns  accessible. 

In  Wisconsin  the  growing  Liberty  sentiment  found  an  outlet 
this  year  in  voting  for  a  delegate  to  Congress.  The  Territorial 
Convention,  meeting  on  February  9,  nominated  E.  D.  Holton, 
of  Milwaukee,  and  local  conventions  met  in  a  majority  of  the 
southeastern  counties.  In  the  fall  election  the  vote  for  delegate 
stood:  Democratic  —  Martin,  11,893  ;  Whig — Collins,  10,788; 
Liberty  —  Holton,  790;  showing  an  increase  of  about  300  over 
the  Liberty  vote  of  the  preceding  year.3 

In  Iowa  an  effort  was  made  in  this  year  to  run  local  Liberty 
tickets.  In  the  anti-slavery  cause  this  State  was  eight  years 
behind  the  other  Northwestern  communities :  at  a  time  when 
the  Liberty  party  was  strongest,  the  Iowa  movement  was  still 
in  the  lecturing  and  church-action  stage.  The  attempt  to  begin 
a  Liberty  party  seems  to  have  drawn  a  slight  vote,  60  being 
returned  from  one  county;  but  in  the  condition  of  things  in 
1845  tne  step  was  premature.4 

1  Emancipator,  Oct.  29,  1845. 

2  Partial  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1846;  others  in  Emancipator,  Jan. 
27,  1847. 

8  Moses  M.  Strong,  History  of  Wisconsin  Territory,  481 ;  Emancipator, 
Oct.  22,  1845;  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Oct.  8,  1845. 
4  Cleveland  American,  Oct.  8,  1845. 


88  DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

In  the  summer  of  1845  an  effort  was  made  to  unify  Western 
sentiment  by  holding  a  "  Great  Southern  and  Western  Con- 
vention" at  Cincinnati,  on  June  1 1  and  12.  Although  the  call 
said  :  "  It  is  not  designed  that  this  convention  shall  be  com- 
posed exclusively  of  members  of  the  Liberty  party,  but  of  all 
who  .  .  .  are  resolved  to  use  all  constitutional  means  to  effect 
the  extinction  of  slavery,"1  neither  Whigs  nor  Democrats 
would  attend,  and  the  convention  amounted  practically  to  a 
Liberty  meeting.  Two  thousand  delegates  were  in  attendance 
from  Ohio,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Michigan,  Illinois,  Virginia,  and 
Wisconsin,  and  considerable  enthusiasm  was  manifested;  but 
there  appeared  certain  tendencies  new  to  the  Liberty  party  and 
destined  to  trouble  it  hereafter.  Those  most  prominent  in  this 
meeting,  besides  Birney  and  Chase,  were  Dr.  Bailey,  Samuel 
Lewis,  Owen  Lovejoy,  and  Rev.  E.  Smith,  like  Lovejoy  a 
political  minister  of  the  gospel.  Letters  were  read  from  Cassius 
M.  Clay,  Governor  Seward,  and  others.  Horace  Greeley  aroused 
some  anger  in  the  convention  by  a  letter,  written  in  bitterness  of 
soul  over  the  recent  Whig  defeat,  which  was  due,  as  he  firmly 
believed,  to  the  Liberty  party;  but  aside  from  this  incident  the 
proceedings  were  harmonious. 

S.  P.  Chase,  like  Birney,  participated  in  the  reaction  against 
the  Whigs,  and,  as  a  natural  consequence  of  his  views  on 
slavery,  had  begun  to  conceive  of  himself  and  of  the  Liberty 
party  as  "  Democratic  "  in  the  same  sense  as  the  "  Loco-foco  " 
wing  of  the  Democracy;  the  only  difference  in  his  eyes  was 
that  the  "  Loco-focos  "  had  neglected  to  carry  out  their  Dem- 
ocratic principles  logically,  to  include  anti-slavery.2  When 
it  is  borne  in  mind  that  at  this  time  Chase  was  the  author 
of  as  many  Liberty  resolutions  and  addresses  as  he  could  be 
induced  to  write,  the  importance  of  this  change  of  mind  is 
evident. 

In  writing  the  resolutions  of  this  convention,  Chase  intro- 
duced some  phrases  explaining  his  creed.  "  That  party  only," 
he  said,  "which  adopts  in  good  faith  the  principles  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  directs  its  most  decisive  action 

1  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  April  23,  1845. 

2  Cleveland  American,  June  26,  1845. 


THE  SOUTHWESTERN  LIBERTY  CONVENTION.        89 

against  slavery  ...  is  the  true  Democratic  party  of  the  United 
States." l  Birney,  who  presided,  undoubtedly  sympathized  to 
some  extent  with  Chase's  views ;  but  recent  events  in  Saginaw 
County  had  taught  him  a  severe  lesson,  and  he  now  was  keenly 
on  guard  against  the  appearance  of  evil.  When  Chase  submitted 
the  "address  to  the  people"  which  he  had  prepared,  Birney 
detected  in  it  certain  passages  that  might  be  interpreted  as 
proposing  a  coalition  with  the  Democratic  party,  and  by  his 
skill  as  a  manager  secured  the  reference  of  the  address  to  a 
committee,  by  whom  the  obnoxious  passages  were  expurgated. 
The  address  waaj^tfen  adopted  by  acclamation.2 

In  this  year  another  movement  began  in  the  Liberty  ranks  • 
which  was  destined  to  disrupt  the  little  party  a  few  years  later. 
This  was  the  appearance  of  the  doctrine  that  the  United  States 
Constitution  was  "  an  anti-slavery  document,"  a  questionable 
theory  at  best,  but  one  very  welcome  to  the  souls  of  impatient 
abolitionists.  Conventions  in  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Ohio  took 
this  ground,  as  did  also  a  great  Eastern  "  Convention  of  the 
Friends  of  Freedom"  at  Boston  in  October,  which  had  been 
called  as  a  complement  to  the  Southern  and  Western  Liberty 
Convention  just  described. 

In  1846  the  Liberty  party  in  the  Northwestern  States  put 
all  its  energy  into  what  proved  to  be  its  last  great  effort ;  but 
the  rising  enthusiasm  of  1841-44  was  lacking.  A  complaining 
tone,  sometimes  perilously  near  that  of  desperation,  permeated 
its  utterances,  even  when  matters  seemed  to  be  going  well.  In 
fact,  the  Liberty  party  was  beginning  to  realize  its  failure.  A 
convention  for  the  Northwest,  held  this  year  in  Chicago,  proved 
in  every  respect  inferior  to  the  Southwestern  Convention,  of 
the  preceding  year.  J.  G.  Carter,  of  Massachusetts,  presided, 
flanked  by  five  vice-presidents  and  two  secretaries.  None  of  the 
Ohio  leaders  were  present ;  and  in  their  absence  E.  S.  Hamlin, 
an  anti-slavery  Whig  of  the  Western  Reserve,  spoke  for  Ohio 
with  liberality  and  good  sense,  holding  to  his  Whiggery,  but 
avoiding  anything  that  could  rasp  his  Liberty  audience.  G.  W. 

1  See  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  published  in  pamphlet  form, 

1845- 

*  W.  Birney,  /.  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  364. 


90          DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

Clark,  the  famous  Liberty  singer  from  New  York,  was  also 
present  and  aroused  enthusiasm. 

The  real  management  of  the  convention,  however,  was  in  the 
hands  of  Codding,  Lovejoy,  and  Eastman  of  Illinois,  by  whose 
influence  an  attempt  to  "broaden  the  platform"  of  the  Liberty 
party  was  defeated.  Birney  since  1845  nad  begun  to  think  that 
the  party  ought  to  have  more  than  one  idea,  and  in  1846  many 
of  the  Michigan  leaders  had  fallen  in  with  his  plan.  Two  of 
these,  Foster  and  Beckly,  of  the  Signal  of  Liberty,  advocated 
declarations  in  favor  of  making  the  Liberty  party  an  agency  of 
general  reform ;  but  after  a  prolonged  debate  this  proposition 
was  defeated,  nearly  all  the  leading  men  opposing  it.1  One  of 
the  most  important  things  done  by  the  convention  was  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  to  consider  the  plan  of  starting  a 
newspaper  at  Washington.  The  committee  did  their  work 
admirably,  and  in  1847  succeeded  in  establishing  the  National 
Era,  with  Dr.  Bailey,  of  Cincinnati,  as  editor,  and  this  paper 
did  more  than  any  other,  until  1854,  to  promote  anti-slavery 
action  in  the  North.2 

In  Ohio  in  this  year  took  place  the  last,  and  in  many  respects 
the  most  interesting,  State  Liberty  campaign.  As  its  result 
turned  on  a  new  development  in  the  Ohio  Whig  party,  it  may 
be  well  to  notice  how  that  organization  had  changed  since  the 
days  when  it  condemned  Thomas  Morris  for  misrepresenting 
Ohio.  It  was  no  longer  possible  entirely  to  ignore  questions 
relating  to  slavery.  The  Whigs  of  the  Reserve  were  for  all 
practical  purposes  abolitionists,  and  in  case  of  an  unsatisfactory 
Whig  nomination  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  them  from  vot- 
ing the  Liberty  ticket,  except  indeed  the  bitterness  between  the 
two  organizations.  This  exasperation,  it  is  true,  had  since  1842 
been  continually  on  the  increase;  but  there  were  signs  in  1846- 
47  that  it  would  fail  to  prevent  bolting  in  the  last  resort. 

1  Cleveland  American,  July  15,  1846;  New  York  Tribune,  July  n,  1846; 
Emancipator,  July  15,  1846.     For  an  account  written  by  one  of  the  other 
side,  see  Signal  of  Liberty,  July  4,  1846. 

2  Emancipator,    Nov.  4,  1846.     The   committee  was:    C.  V.  Dyer  and 
Zebina  Eastman,  of  Chicago ;  Charles  Durkee,  of  Wisconsin ;  J.  J.  Deming, 
of  Indiana,  and  C.  Beckly,  of  Michigan. 


OHIO    WHIGS  OPPOSE  BLACK  LAWS.  91 

On  the  subject  of  the  Black  Laws  the  Western  Reserve  was 
a  unit,  and  by  1846  had  succeeded  in  forcing  the  subject  into 
prominence.  In  1845  bills  to  repeal  the  Black  Laws  had  been 
defeated  by  a  smaller  margin  than  before.  In  1846  another 
repeal  bill  met  defeat ;  but  a  majority  of  the  Whig  members 
favored  it,  and  the  Reserve  was  of  course  solid  on  that  side. 
Although  the  convention  of  the  two  regular  parties  nominated 
candidates  for  the  campaign  of  1846,  without  taking  any  ground 
on  the  subject,  so  large  a  portion  of  the  Whig  press  began  to 
advocate  repeal  that  the  question  was  certain  to  enter  into  the 
election. 

The  Liberty  State  Convention  had  met,  December  31,  1845, 
nominated  Samuel  Lewis  for  Governor,  and  adopted  some 
resolutions  written  by  Chase,  —  among  others  one  declaring 
"  that  we  professedly  revere  the  doctrine  of  true  Democracy."  l 
Early  in  February  Lewis  began  an  extraordinary  campaign 
of  stump-speaking.  From  February  18  until  September  28, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  weeks  in  the  summer  when  he 
was  ill,  this  indefatigable  apostle  of  freedom  traversed  Ohio, 
arousing  interest  where  Liberty  speakers  had  never  been 
heard  before,  and  in  places  like  the  Reserve  creating  great 
enthusiasm. 

Soon  interest  centred  in  the  position  of  the  three  candidates 
with  regard  to  the  Black  Laws.  Tod,  the  Democratic  nominee, 
tried  the  virtues  of  silence  ;  Lewis,  of  course,  favored  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  laws ;  and,  to  the  delight  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
Bebb,  the  Whig  candidate,  took  the  unheard-of  step  of  coming 
out  boldly  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  the  law  invalidating  negro 
testimony  against  whites.2  From  the  first,  Liberty  men  sus- 
pected him,  but  could  find  no  good  cause  for  denying  his  sin- 
cerity. So  consistently  did  he  hold  to  his  position  while  he 
traversed  the  Reserve  that  the  Liberty  eaders  found  their 
party's  growth  seriously  threatened.  The  Democrats,  who  had 
hitherto  been  enjoying  the  spectacle,  thought  the  tide  seemed 
to  be  setting  towards  Bebb,  and,  in  hope  of  sustaining  the 
courage  of  Liberty  men,  printed  an  absurd  and  unreal  eulogium 

1  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  Jan.  7,  1845. 

2  Ibid.,  Feb.  25,  1846;  New  York  Tribune,  July  6,  1846. 


92  DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

on  Lewis  in  the  Ohio  Statesman!  In  the  Twentieth  Congres- 
sional District  an  attempt  was  made  to  bring  the  Liberty  party 
to  support  Giddings.  As  usual,  the  effort  failed ;  for,  said  the 
Cleveland  American,  "  he  [Giddings]  would  vote  for  a  slave- 
holder for  President,  provided  he  were  pledged  to  Northern 
rights.  Is  this  Liberty  ground?  Will  Liberty  men  vote  for  a 
slave-holder  on  any  considerations  whatever?  "  2  Edward  Wade 
received  the  third-party  Congressional  nomination,  and  took  the 
stump  against  Giddings. 

In  September,  the  Democrats,  hitherto  silent  on  the  subject 
of  the  Black  Laws,  were  unwillingly  drawn  into  the  fray  by  the 
discovery  that  Tod,  in  1838,  when  a  candidate  for  the  legisla- 
ture, had  replied  to  anti-slavery  questioners  that  he  favored 
repeal.  In  their  alarm  at  this  appalling  revelation,  Democratic 
papers  violently  disclaimed  any  such  position,  attacking  Bebb 
as  a  man  who  would  make  Ohio  a  receptacle  for  broken-down 
and  runaway  negroes.3  The  three-cornered  fight  grew  hotter, 
with  Lewis  on  one  side,  Tod's  supporters  on  the  other,  and 
Bebb,  now  beginning  to  be  alarmed  at  the  possible  effect  of  his 
speeches  in  the  southern  counties,  trying  to  hold  the  balance. 
He  wanted  the  anti-slavery  Whig  and  the  Liberty  vote,  but  he 
wanted  still  more  the  Southern  Whigs  from  the  Ohio  River 
region.  He  therefore  told  a  quite  different  story  in  speeches  in 
southern  counties,  admitting  that  he  was  in  favor  of  equalizing 
blacks  and  whites  before  the  courts,  but  asserting  warmly  that  he 
was  opposed  to  equal  political  or  educational  advantages,  and 
suggesting  that  a  good  way  to  keep  negroes  out  of  the  State 
would  be  to  lay  a  special  tax  on  their  land.4  This  was,  to  say 
the  least,  sharp  practice ;  but  owing  to  the  difficulties  of  com- 
munication between  the  northern  and  southern  parts  of  the 

1  "  Mr.  Lewis,  the   candidate  of  the    Liberty   party,  is  winning  golden 
opinions.     Mr.  Lewis  sets  out  to  discuss  a  great  principle  and  his  whole 
bearing  is  marked  by  a  candor  and  sincerity  which  induce  his  listeners  to 
respect  even  his  errors.     Mr.  Bebb  is  his  antipode.     His  special  pleading 
commands  no  more  respect  than  his  grimaces."     Quoted  in  Herald  and 
Philanthropist,  July  15,  1846. 

2  Sept.  2,  1846. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Sept  9,  1846. 
4  Cleveland  American,  Oct.  22,  1846. 


OHIO  ELECTION  OF  1846.  93 

State,  the  fact  was  not  known  on  the  Reserve  until  after  the 
election.  In  the  meantime,  Bebb's  anti-Black-Law  utterances 
had  saved  him.  At  the  last  moment,  B.  F.  Wade,  who  had  re- 
tired from  politics,  but  was  still  dear  to  Western  Reserve  people 
for  his  anti-slavery  record  in  1838-39,  made  a  vigorous  appeal 
in  his  behalf;  and  thus  Bebb,  while  he  was  advocating  negro 
exclusion  in  the  southern  counties,  carried  the  Western  Reserve 
on  his  anti-slavery  professions.1  The  vote  in  October  stood: 
Democratic  —  Tod,  116,489;  Whig — Bebb,  118,857;  Liberty  — 
Lewis,  io,799-2  This  result  marked  an  increase  for  the  Liberty 
vote  over  its  highest  previous  total ;  but,  as  all  agreed,  the  gain 
was  not  so  great  as  it  would  have  been  but  for  Bebb's  advocacy 
of  Black  Law  repeal.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  Liberty 
men  were  sore  and  angry,  and  felt  in  regard  to  Bebb  that  "  his 
election  to  the  gubernatorial  chair  has  been  secured  by  one  of 
the  vilest  frauds  that  ever  disgraced  a  political  contest."  3 

In  Indiana,  in  1846,  there  was  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
Liberty  men  to  increase  their  vote.  Left  strictly  alone  by  the 
old  parties,  their  campaign  lacked  the  interest  of  that  in  Ohio, 
and  it  suffered  furthermore  from  lack  of  organization.  "  There 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  common  understanding  among  the 
friends  scattered  in  different  parts  of  the  State,"  complained  the 
Herald  and  Philanthropist ;  4  and  again,  "  this  is  a  hard  State, 
in  which  little  has  been  done."  The  Indiana  Freeman  said : 
"  Liberty  men  seem  to  forget  that  the  Liberty  party  originated 
in  a  firm  belief  that  slavery  could  never  be  abolished  until  such  a 
party  was  formed.  If  this  conviction  was  well  founded,  Liberty 
men  ought  not  to  absent  themselves  from  the  polls  on  election 
days."  5  In  August,  1846,  the  vote  stood :  Democratic  —  Whit- 
comb,  64,104;  Whig — Marshall,  60,697;  Liberty  —  Stevens, 
2,2 78.6  This  result  showed  an  increase  of  only  172  over  the 
vote  in  1844.  The  cause  had  evidently  come  to  a  standstill. 

1  Cleveland  American,  Nov.  4,  1846. 

2  Complete  returns,  Ibid.,  Nov.  11,  1846;  also  in  Whig  Almanac,  1847. 
8  Cleveland  American,  Oct.  22,  1846. 

4  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  Nov.  12,  1845. 

6  Quoted  in  Emancipator,  Oct.  28,  1846. 

6  Official  in  Indianapolis  Sentinel,  Sept.  12,  1846. 


94          DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

In  Michigan  the  party  had  a  good  organization  and  a  com- 
pact band  of  workers;  but  in  the  autumn  of  1845  it  lost  its 
leader,  and  decay  seemed  at  once  to  begin.  James  G.  Birney 
suffered  an  accident  which  so  injured  his  brain  that,  while  his 
mental  faculties  remained  unimpaired,  his  speech  was  almost 
lost,  and  writing  became  painful  and  at  times  impossible.  The 
Liberty  cause  in  Michigan  and  in  the  country  at  large  thus  sus- 
tained a  loss  that  it  could  not  repair.  Mr.  Birney  was  an  able, 
active  man,  a  born  organizer  and  manager,  a  good  judge  of 
men  and  of  measures.  His  principal  fault,  strangely  enough, 
lay  in  his  inability  to  realize  that  frankness  in  a  candidate  is 
sometimes  almost  as  great  a  mistake  as  undue  secretiveness,  and 
that  expediency  may  advantageously  be  regarded  in  connection 
with  dealings  outside  as  well  as  with  those  inside  the  party.  He 
would  undoubtedly  have  played  a  large  part  in  later  political 
history,  had  not  his  injury  put  an  end  to  his  career.  From  this 
time  until  his  death,  in  1858,  he  remained  in  retirement,  writing 
letters  occasionally,  but  in  the  main  observing  quietly,  although 
with  keen  interest,  the  course  of  politics. 

With  his  retirement  the  anti-slavery  cause  in  Michigan  seemed 
at  once  to  decline.  His  candidacy  in  1845  nad  brought  the 
Liberty  vote  nearly  to  the  level  of  that  of  the  year  before ;  in 
1846  it  fell  off.  On  February  4  the  State  Anti-Slavery  Society 
met  and  received  a  communication  from  Birney  advocating  a 
broader  basis.  After  due  consideration  the  convention  voted : 
"  It  is  neither  consistent  with  our  present  objects,  nor  expedient, 
to  add  to  our  present  political  principles." l  Shortly  afterwards, 
at  the  annual  Liberty  convention  at  Ann  Arbor,  the  same  pro- 
posals were  made,  but  after  an  animated  debate  were  again 
postponed.2  Having  disposed  of  this  question,  the  Liberty  men 
proceeded  to  organize,  and  by  October  had  reasonably  full 
tickets  in  the  field.  On  the  eve  of  the  election  the  Central 
Committee  issued  a  hopeful  address,  saying:  "This  year  we 
have  endeavored  to  do  something.  We  have  effected  a  good 
State  organization.  Almost  every  town  has  its  committee.  Be 
assured,  friends,  that  our  vote  for  1846  will  startle  friends  and 

1  Emancipator,  March  18,  1846. 

2  Cincinnati  Gazette,  March  12,  1846. 


LIBERTY  DECLINE  IN  MICHIGAN.  95 

foes  by  its  increase  if  we  are  faithful."  1  The  vote  did  indeed 
startle  the  friends  of  the  cause ;  2  for  it  resulted  in  a  decrease  of 
478  from  that  of  the  year  before,  and  of  747  since  1844,  and  it  was 
larger  than  the  vote  in  1843  by  iioonly.  The  mortified  Lib- 
erty men  attributed  their  loss  to  lack  of  organization ;  but  that 
was  not  the  real  reason.  The  abolitionists  of  Michigan  were 
beginning  to  tire  of  the  apparently  hopeless  effort  to  build  up  a 
new  party.  Since  Birney's  retirement  they  were  without  any 
very  strong  leader ;  the  struggle  over  the  broader  platform  had 
diminished  confidence  and  caused  quarrels;3  and,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, no  amount  of  organizing  could  bring  them  to  the 
polls. 

In  Illinois,  the  northeastern  counties,  after  their  relapse  of 
1845,  returned  to  the  charge  with  redoubled  vigor,  and  in  this 
year  reached  their  highest  point.  Although  a  State  ticket  was 
to  be  elected,  the  main  anti-slavery  interest  lay  in  the  Fourth 
Congressional  District.  On  January  14  a  convention  at  St. 
Charles,  attended  by  crowds  from  ten  or  twelve  counties,  unani- 
mously and  with  great  enthusiasm  nominated  Lovejoy  for 
Congress.  In  Chicago  arrangements  were  made  early  in  the 
year  to  hold  bi-weekly  meetings  in  every  precinct,  and  to  build 
a  permanent  Liberty  headquarters.4  On  May  24  the  State 
Convention  nominated  Richard  Eells  for  Governor  and  A. 
Smith  for  Lieutenant-Governor;  candidates  for  Congress  were 
nominated  in  all  the  districts  except  ''Egypt ";  Codding,  St. 
Clair,  and  Cross  were  constantly  in  the  field ;  and  a  flood  of 
tracts  were  issued.6  So  great  was  the  enthusiasm  in  the  Chicago 

1  Emancipator,  Oct.  14,  1846. 

2  It  was  as  follows :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Liberty. 

First  District        .     .     7,877  6,442  777 

Second  District    .     .     9,515  8,678  1,127 

Third  District      .     .     6,492  5,780  981 

Total      .     .  23,884  20,904  2,885 

See  Whig  Almanac,  1848. 

8  Signal  of  Liberty,  May  11,  18,  1846. 

4  Emancipator,  Feb.  H,  March  11,  1846;  Herald  and  Philanthropist, 
May  20,  1846. 

6  Western  Citizen,  June  10,  1846;  Chicago  Journal,  July  24,  1846. 


96          DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

district,  that  the  Western  Citizen  began  to  hope  that  Lovejoy 
would  lead  Kerr,  the  Whig,  and  thus  be  next  to  "  Long  John 
Wentworth."  Although  this  hope  proved  vain,  Lovejoy  polled 
in  his  own  district  a  Liberty  vote  equal  to  the  Liberty  vote  of 
the  whole  State  in  1844.  One  of  the  most  serious  difficulties 
encountered  by  Lovejoy  in  his  canvass  was  the  bad  impression 
left  by  preceding  abolitionist  orators.  At  Lowell,  for  example, 
he  could  do  little,  for  a  "  rash,  violent,  ranting,  denunciatory 
preacher "  had  spoiled  everything.  "  I  wish,"  he  said,  "  our 
ministers  would  learn  to  be  a  little  more  prudent,  use  a  little 
more  oil  and  not  so  much  of  the  fire  and  hammer."1 

The  vote  for  Governor  resulted  as  follows :  Democratic  — 
French,  58,576;  Whig  —  Kilpatrick,  36,937;  Liberty  —  Eells, 
5,147.  For  Congressmen  the  total  Liberty  vote  was  a  little 
larger,  —  5,221.  In  the  Fourth  District  the  vote  was:  Demo- 
cratic—  Wentworth,  12,026;  Whig  —  Kerr,  6,208;  Liberty  — 
Lovejoy,  3,531.  In  De  Kalb,  Kane,  Kendall,  Lake,  and  Mc- 
Henry  counties,  the  Liberty  vote  was  ahead  of  the  Whig,  and 
in  Bureau  and  Du  Page  practically  equal  to  it.2 

In  Iowa,  there  is  no  record  of  any  Liberty  vote  in  1846; 
bqt  there  was  a  gradual  strengthening  of  anti-slavery  sentiment. 
The  State  Anti-Slavery  Society  resolved  on  November  26  to 
establish  a  newspaper  and  to  hold  a  convention  in  the  winter  of 
1847,  preparatory  to  organizing  a  State  Liberty  party.  Wiscon- 
sin had  no  general  territorial  ticket ;  but  there  were  members 
of  a  Constitutional  convention  to  be  chosen,  for  which  the 
Liberty  party  in  many  places  ran  separate  tickets.  Agitation 
by  lecturing  and  the  establishment  of  a  newspaper  occupied 
anti-slavery  interest  in  the  Territory. 

The  year  1846  marks  the  flood  tide  for  the  Liberty  party  in 
the  United  States.  In  some  of  the  New  England  States,  indeed, 
it  kept  on  growing  after  this,  but  in  the  Central  and  Northwest- 
ern States  it  fell  off.  Already  in  1846  the  coming  decline  was 
foreshadowed  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Michigan;  but 


1  Western  Citizen,  June  10,  1846. 

2  Returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1847;  district  returns  in  Cincinnati  Her  aid, 
Sept.  1 6,  1846;  some  county  returns  in  Emancipator^  Sept.  9,  1846. 


GENERAL  POLITICAL  LASSITUDE.  97 

on  the  whole  the  Liberty  vote  in  this  year  reached  its  maxi- 
mum, in  a  total  of  74,017,  against  62,200  in  I844.1 

The  next  year,  1847,  was  uneventful;  for  other  questions  had 
risen  which  drew  the  attention  of  anti-slavery  men  away  from 
local  politics.  In  Ohio  there  was  no  State  Convention,  nor  was 
there  any  action  of  importance  beyond  some  county  nominating 
conventions  and  two  general  meetings  in  the  Western  Reserve, 
engineered  by  J.  H.  Paine  and  Edward  Wade.  The  vote  for 
local  offices  in  the  fall  was  less  than  at  any  time  since  i84i.2 
Three  thousand  votes  are  reported  for  counties  which  cast  4,300 
in  the  preceding  year.  In  Indiana  there  was  about  the  same 
state  of  things ;  local  organization  was  kept  up  and  nominations 
were  made  ;  but  the  main  interest  was  not  in  the  election,  and  no 
record  of  any  vote  is  known,  beyond  a  few  county  returns.  In 
Michigan,  even  a  State  election  for  Governor  failed  to  arouse 
much  interest,  or  to  stop  the  local  Liberty  party  on  its  down- 
ward course.  The  State  Convention  nominated  C.  Gurney  for 
Governor  and  H.  Hallock  for  Lieutenant-Governor.  There  was 
almost  no  campaign,  no  interest  in  the  election,  and  a  very  small 
vote  in  September.  In  the  absence  of  any  State  election,  Illi- 
nois leaders  devoted  themselves  to  agitation  and  organization. 
Local  conventions  met  and  deliberated,  and  a  Liberty  conven- 
tion for  southern  Illinois  was  held  at  Eden,  in  Randolph  County. 
Delegates  were  present  from  seven  counties,  —  for  even  in  the 
vicinity  of  "  Egypt "  there  were  traces  of  anti-slavery  senti- 
ment.3 Iowa,  now  a  State,  remained  in  much  the  same  condition 
as  Illinois  :  her  anti-slavery  men  were  able  to  agitate,  but  did  not 
feel  strong  enough  to  form  a  Liberty  organization.  In  Wiscon- 
sin the  local  Liberty  party  remained  unaffected  by  the  lassitude 

1  Maine 9,244  New  York   .     .     .  12,027 

New  Hampshire    .     .  10,403  Pennsylvania    .     .  2,028 

Vermont 6,671  Ohio  .     .     .     .     .  10,797 

Massachusetts  .     .     .  10,134  Indiana  ....  2,278 

Rhode  Island    ...        155  Michigan     .     .     .  2,885 

Connecticut       .     .     .     2,248  Illinois    ....  5,147 

2  According  to  some  papers    the  vote   was    as  follows :    Democratic, 
105,385;  Whig*  103,822;  Liberty,  4,379.     See  National  Era,  Nov.  II,  1847. 

8  National  Era,  Sept.  30,  Oct.  28,  1847.  For  a  notice  of  Madison  County 
in  this  region,  see  A.  C.  McLaughlin,  Lewis  Cass,  302. 

7 


98  DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

which  had  seized  upon  it  in  the  other  States.  In  the  winter  a 
State  constitution  was  submitted  to  the  people,  and  with  it,  on 
a  separate  ballot,  the  question  of  negro  suffrage.  This  subject 
stirred  up  Liberty  interest ;  but,  although  the  party  labored  hard, 
it  produced  little  effect  upon  territorial  sentiment,  and  negro  suf- 
frage was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  14,615  to  7,664*  At  this  time 
Ichabod  Codding  and  G.  W.  Clark,  the  Liberty  singer,  came  from 
Illinois  to  make  a  lecturing  tour  of  the  Territory;  and  Codding 
remained  for  a  time  in  order  to  help  the  new  American  Freeman. 
His  presence  was  a  great  stimulus,  and  helped  the  Liberty  men 
in  October  to  increase  their  vote  as  follows:  Democratic  —  M. 
M.  Strong,  9,648 ;  Whig — J.  H.  Tweedy,  10,670;  Liberty  — 
C  Durkee,  973.2 

In  1847,  then,  the  Liberty  party  in  the  Northwest  and  in 
the  country  at  large  seemed  to  be  slackening  its  efforts.  The 
tide  had  begun  to  ebb ;  for,  as  Dr.  Bailey  said,  "  Not  to  ad- 
vance is  to  recede ;  no  new  and  small  party  can  live  simply  by 
holding  its  own."  3  The  fact  was,  that  many  adherents  were 
getting  tired  of  the  bootless  work  of  seven  years  and  were  im- 
patient for  change.  Hence,  about  this  time  we  find  a  number 
of  new  doctrines  springing  up  among  Liberty  men,  and  a  ten- 
dency toward  faction  threatening  to  shiver  into  fragments  the 
party,  already  none  too  numerous. 

One  such  phenomenon,  already  noted  above,  was  the  growth 
of  a  theory  that  the  United  States  Constitution  was  an  anti-slavery 
document,  and,  as  a  sort  of  corollary,  that  slavery  must  be  un- 
constitutional in  the  States.4  The  latter  doctrine  was  worked 
out  with  ingenuity  by  Lysander  Spooner  on  historical  and  legal 
grounds ;  but  although  he  and  William  Goodell,  who  had  reached 
the  same  conclusion  by  a  different  method,  had  a  considera- 
ble following  in  the  Eastern  States,  they  found  little  support 
west  of  New  York.  It  was  evident  that  their  view,  if  accepted, 
would  vastly  broaden  the  opportunities  for  anti-slavery  action ; 

1  F.  E.  Baker,  The  Elective  Franchise  in  Wisconsin,  in  Wisconsin  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  1894,  p.  9.     See  below,  Appendix  D. 

2  Official  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1848. 

8  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  Nov.  12,  1845. 

4  Lysander  Spooner,  The  Unconstitutional^  of  'Slavery ',  Boston,  1853. 


NEW  ANTI-SLAVERY  DOCTRINES.  99 

but  it  was  so  entirely  contrary  to  the  received  Liberty  creed 
that  the  practical  Ohio  and  Illinois  leaders  looked  on  it  with 
disfavor.  In  Ohio,  in  1845,  a  few  county  conventions  resolved 
that  Congress  could  abolish  slavery  in  the  States  ;  1  but  in  1846 
the  Black  Law  campaign  caused  theoretical  questions  to  be  laid 
aside.  In  1847  the  idea  gained  renewed  vigor  from  the  discus- 
sions in  the  East,  and  again  Ohio  abolitionists  defined  their  po- 
sition. The  Cleveland  American  2  inclined  toward  Spooner's 
views  ;  but  the  Philanthropist,  now  under  the  name  of  National 
Press  and  Herald,  and  edited  by  Stanley  Mathews,  held  to  the 
received  doctrine.  Local  conventions  also  seemed  to  have  grown 
conservative.  Logan  County,  which  two  years  before  had  re- 
solved that  the  Constitution  was  an  anti-slavery  instrument,  now 
voted  down  a  resolution  declaring  slavery  unconstitutional;3 
and  Hamilton  County  also  rejected  the  new  doctrine.4 

In  Indiana,  a  convention  at  South  Bend,  in  1845,  had  resolved 
that  slavery  was  unconstitutional,5  but  the  matter  does  not  seem 
to  have  aroused  much  interest;  nor  is  there  any  record  of  con- 
troversy on  the  subject  in  Michigan.  In  Illinois,  a  convention 
at  Fulton,  in  1845,  had  resolved  that  the  Constitution  was  an 
anti-slavery  document;6  but  in  1847,  when  the  subject  was 
brought  up  at  the  convention  for  southern  Illinois,  the  tradi- 
tional interpretation  prevailed.7  Wisconsin  had  shown  a  ten- 
dency toward  radicalism  by  adopting  at  its  Liberty  Territorial 
Convention,  in  1845,  the  position  that  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution was  anti-slavery ; 8  but  after  that  time  its  interest  ceased 
to  rest  upon  theoretical  questions,  until  in  1847,  w^tn  tne  Liberty 
League  (hereafter  mentioned),  these  questions  arose  once  more. 

Another  tendency  toward  altering  the  Liberty  programme  was 
that  shown  by  Chase  in  his  use  of  the  term  "  democracy"  as 
synonymous  with  "anti-slavery."  In  1845  he  had  given  indica- 
tions of  a  tendency  in  this  direction,  and  by  1846  his  correspond- 

1  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  March  5,  Sept.  17,  1845. 

2  March  31,  1847.  3  National  Press  and  Herald,  Sept.  I,  1847. 
4  National  Era,  Sept.  23,  1847. 

6  Emancipator,  May  14,  1845. 

6  Ibid.,  April  2,  1845.  7  National  Era,  Oct.  28,  1847. 

8  Emancipator,  July  30,  1845. 


100        DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

ence  shows  a  rapid  growth  in  his  mind  of  the  conviction  that  the 
Democratic  party  was  the  natural  ally  for  anti-slavery  men.  "  I 
think  that  the  political  views  of  the  Democrats  are  in  the  main 
sound,"  he  wrote  to  Giddings  in  August,  1846,  "  and  the  chief 
fault  I  have  to  accuse  them  of  is  that  they  do  not  carry  out  their 
principles  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  slavery.  ...  I  have  some- 
times thought,"  he  added,  "  that  if  all  the  anti-slavery  men  whose 
opinions  are  Democratic  should  act  with  that  party  in  this  state 
they  might  change  its  character  wholly."  l  In  the  same  vein  he 
wrote  to  John  P.  Hale :  "  At  the  present  moment  there  are 
doubtless  more  abolitionists  in  the  Whig  party  than  in  the 
Democratic  party,  but  I  fear  that  the  Whig  party  will  always 
look  upon  the  overthrow  of  slavery  as  a  work  to  be  taken  up  or 
laid  aside  as  expediency  may  suggest,  whereas  if  we  can  once 
get  the  Democratic  party  in  motion  regarding  the  overthrow  of 
slavery  as  a  necessary  result  of  its  principles,  I  would  have  no 
apprehension  at  all  of  the  work  being  laid  aside  until  accom- 
plished." 2  For  holding  such  views,  Chase  and  the  whole  Ohio 
Liberty  party,  which  he  was  supposed  to  represent,  were  looked 
upon  with  suspicion  by  many  abolitionists.  In  1846,  a  letter 
to  the  Northwestern  Convention,  in  which  he  suggested  a  new 
non-partisan  league,  caused  the  editors  of  the  Michigan  Signal 
of  Liberty  to  say:  "  This  last  proposal  confirmed  our  previous 
impressions  that  the  Liberty  party  of  Ohio  did  not  expect  or 
wish-  to  be  a  permanent  National  party,  but  are  ready  when  an 
opportunity  offers  to  merge  themselves  in  some  other  body."  3 

LA  more  important  movement  was  one  started  by  Birney  to 
transform  the  Liberty  party  into  a  general  radical  reform  party. 
The  "one  idea"  had  proved  too  narrow;  if  the  platform  should 
contain  planks  pledging  the  party  to  all  kinds  of  reform,  many 
men  favoring  one  or  more  of  these  might  come  in  who  would 
otherwise  be  unable  to  do  so.  This  movement  began  in  Michigan, 
with  a  letter  from  Mr.  Birney,  and  a  circular  sent  by  Beckly  and 
Foster  of  the  Signal  of  Liberty  to  all  the  leading  Liberty  news- 
papers in  the  country,  requesting  co-operation  in  bringing  the 

1  August  15,  1846:  J.  W.  Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  99. 

2  May  12,  1847:  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  312. 
8  Signal  of  Liberty,  July  4,  1846. 


BROADENING   THE  LIBERTY  PLATFORM.  IOI 

party  to  broaden  the  platform.1  In  Ohio  this  project  attracted 
almost  as  little  notice  as  did  the  dogma  of  the  unconstitutionality 
of  slavery.  Chase  might  possibly  have  favored  it,  had  he  not 
been  at  the  time  contemplating  "Democracy";  others  found  it 
unnecessary.  On  December  30,  1845,  the  State  Liberty  Conven- 
tion laid  on  the  table  resolutions  on  the  Free  Bank  law  and  on 
sugar  duties;  and  this  action  is  the  only  suggestion  of  any  move 
to  broaden  the  platform.2  In  Indiana  Mr.  Birney's  plan  pro- 
duced no  disturbance  ;  but  in  Michigan,  where  the  movement 
originated,  it  aroused  much  debate.  In  February,  1845,  the 
State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  as  has  been  said,  rejected  the  pro- 
posal to  broaden  the  party,  and  at  a  later  meeting  the  State 
Liberty  Convention  did  the  same.  In  Illinois,  as  we  have  seen, 
at  the  Northwestern  Convention,  a  motion  to  broaden  the  plat- 
form was  made,  but  was  defeated.  Again,  in  1847,  at  the  Con- 
vention for  the  Fourth  District,  at  Elgin,  a  resolution  looking  in 
that  direction  was  laid  on  the  table,  but  adopted  later,  in  a  very 
mild  form.3  In  Wisconsin  alone  of  the  Northwestern  States 
did  the  new  doctrine  meet  with  much  welcome.  In  1845  the 
Territorial  Liberty  Association  resolved  that  "  the  one  idea  em- 
braces opposition  to  sin  and  tyranny  in  all  forms";4  and  in 
1847,  while  it  asserted  the  paramount  importance  of  the  slavery 
question,  it  reiterated  its  purpose  to  oppose  evil  of  all  kinds.5 

Nevertheless,  advocates  of  a  broader  platform  went  forward, 
until  their  movement  culminated  in  the  formation,  by  William 
Goodell  and  some  of  his  sympathizers,  of  a  new  radical  party 
called  the  "  Liberty  League."  Their  convention  at  Macedon 
Lock,  New  York,  in  June,  1847,  nominated  Gerrit  Smith  and 
Elihu  Burritt  for  the  Presidency  and  Vice-Presidency  respec- 
tively, and  adopted  a  long  series  of  resolutions  setting  forth  the 
views  of  Goodell  and  Spooner.  Even  among  those  who  sym- 
pathized with  the  idea  of  a  radical  party,  this  movement  found 
little  support,  except  in  New  York.  In  the  Northwest,  when- 


1  Emancipator,  March  18,  1846. 

2  Herald  and  Philanthropist,  Jan.  7,  1846. 

8  National  Era,  March  18,  1847;  American  Freeman,  March  17,  1847. 

4  Emancipator,  July  30,  1845. 

6  American  Freeman,  Feb.  10,  1847. 


102         DISCOURAGEMENT  OF   THE   LIBERTY  MEN. 

ever  the  action  of  the  Macedon  Lock  convention  was  noticed 
by  newspapers  or  by  conventions,  it  was  generally  with  regret. 
The  Cincinnati  Herald  said :  "  It  will  be  as  impossible  for  the 
Liberty  party  to  support  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Goodell's  uni- 
versal reform  party,  as  it  will  to  vote  for  the  Whig  or  Democratic 
candidates,  and  to  propose  it  in  either  of  these  cases  is  a  betrayal 
of  the  party."  1  Even  Wisconsin  Liberty  men  regretted  the 
action.  The  Milwaukee  American  Freeman  called  the  address 
of  the  Liberty  League  "  a  truly  able  one,"  but  added  "  to  support 
Messrs.  Smith  and  Burritt,  Liberty  men  as  such  cannot  labor. 
To  do  so  would  be  to  make  the  manifesto  of  Goodell  and  others 
the  creed  of  the  Liberty  party  and  to  exclude  from  .  .  .  our  sup- 
port .  .  .  any  believers  in  even  a  revenue  tariff.  .  .  .  Still  we  have 
no  quarrel  with  these  men."  2  The  Wisconsin  Liberty  Associa- 
tion resolved,  on  July  14,  that  "we  regret  the  organization  of  a 
new  political  party,  and  regard  it  as  uncalled  for."  3 

During  part  of  this  period  another  circumstance  undoubtedly 
tended  to  a  certain  extent  to  district  the  Liberty  party:  this 
was  the  growth  of  a  Garrisonian  movement  in  Ohio  and  Michi- 
gan. At  first,  after  1840,  there  had  been  no  organizations  other 
than  the  old  State  anti-slavery  societies;  but  in  a  short  time  the 
followers  of  Garrison  rallied  and  set  up  their  separate  State  asso- 
ciations. Stephen  S.  Foster  and  Abby  Kelly,  and  later  Parker 
Pillsbury,  made  frequent  lecturing  tours  on  the  Western  Reserve 
and  in  Michigan,  and  succeeded  in  securing  a  certain  following 
for  the  "Disunion"  movement.  Once  started,  this  compara- 
tively small  body  showed  a  persistency  and  a  unity  of  purpose 
which  entirely  surpassed  the  ardor  of  the  bulk  of  the  Liberty 
party.  From  1845  onward,  they  supported  a  newspaper,  the 
Anti-Slavery  Bugle,  at  Salem,  Ohio,  while  Liberty  papers,  one 
after  another,  with  a  nominal  support  ten  times  as  large,  rose 
and  fell  by  the  wayside  on  the  Western  Reserve. 

The  sentiments  expressed  by  these  persons  did  not,  however, 
attract  very  much  attention,  except  when,  as  not  uncommonly 
happened,  they  were  accredited  to  the  Liberty  party  by  Old 

1  June  2,  1847. 

2  American  Freeman,  July  14,  21,  1847. 
«  Ibid.,  July  28,  1847. 


LIBERTY  MEN  AND   GARRISONIANS.  103 

Line  Whig  and  Democratic  presses.  Almost  the  only  formal 
action  taken  with  regard  to  them  by  the  political  abolitionists 
was  a  resolution  adopted  at  a  convention  at  Elgin,  Illinois,  on 
February  16,  1847:  "We  regret,  as  evil  in  its  tendencies,  the 
dogma  of  the  so-called  Garrisonian  or  non-resistance  abolition- 
ists." 1  At  about  the  same  time,  tke/Xyisconsin^Territorial  Con- 
vention passed  a^  resolution  1^  ^the  effect  that  voting  was  a 
Christian  duty.2  Irf'general,  there  was  not  that  intense  bitter- 
ness between  Liberty  men  and  Garrisonians  which  prevailed  in 
New  England.  Outside  sentiment  was  made  plain  when  in 
1847  Garrisonian  disunion  petitions  were  presented  to  the  Ohio 
legislature;  a  committee  indignantly  advised  that  a  copy  of 
Washington's  farewell  address  be  sent  to  every  school  district  in 
the  State,  in  order  to  prevent  any  similar  occurrence  in  future.3 

By  1847  the  Liberty  party  was  showing  signs  of  fatigue  and 
discontent.  Itihad  done  good  work,,  it  had  stood  to  its  guns, 
firing  the-rri'  apparently  into  vacancy  for  seven  years,  and  yet 
popular  sentiment  failed  to^upport  it.  In  spite  of  all  its  efforts, 
the  densest  ignorance  of  its  aims  and  methods  prevailed  in  many 
of  the  free  States,  as  is  well  illustrated  by  a  letter  from  Morgan 
County,  Illinois,  dated  June  20,  1845:  "  Quite  a  large  portion 
of  our  Western  people  who  are  anti-slavery  in  principle  and  who 
will  subscribe  to  all  the  views  of  the  abolitionists  when  presented 
to  them  in  private  conversation,  still  abhor  the  name  abolitionist. 
They  attach  to  the  name  everything  that  is  false,  such  as  amal- 
gamation, circulating  inflammatory  papers  among  the  negroes 
.  .  .  and  a  desire  to  do  away  with  slavery  by  physical  force. 
They  also  attach  to  the  name  all  the  views  of  Garrison.  Many 
of  them  are  honest  men  .  .  .  but  they  believe  multitudes  of  false 
stories  that  are  studiously  circulated  on  purpose  to  prevent 
honest  people  from  coming  to  the  light."4 

As  the  election  of  1848  drew  near,  all  the  diverse  elements  in 
the  Liberty  party  began  to  demand  a  nomination  and  a  platform 
which  would  be  a  ratification  of  their  own  peculiar  position. 

1  National  Era,  March  18,  1847. 

2  American  Freeman,  Feb.  10,  1847. 

8  \6th  Annual  Report  of  the  Mass.  Anti-Slav.  Soc.,  1848. 
4  Emancipator,  July  16,  1845. 


104        DISCOURAGEMENT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  MEN. 

Lysander  Spooner  wanted  the  convention  to  declare  slavery  un- 
constitutional; Goodell  and  his  sympathizers  wanted  it  to  adopt 
the  principles  of  the  Liberty  League,  and  thus  turn  itself  into  a 
universal  reform  party ;  conservative  Liberty  men  desired  it  to 
keep  on  in  the  same  old  rut,  separate,  sufficient  unto  itself;  and 
Chase,  Lewis,  Leavitt,  and  others  hoped  by  a  more  liberal  nom- 
ination and  platform  to  place  the  party  in  a  position  to  gain 
from  existing  circumstances. 

These  last,  with  truer  insight  than  the  other  leaders,  realized 
that  since  1844  the  Liberty  party  had  deliberately  chosen  to 
exclude  itself  from  action  with  regard  to  a  living  issue,  and  had 
thus  made  its  task  infinitely  harder  than  it  would  otherwise 
have  been.  Ever  since  the  Texas  annexation  project  had  been 
brought  up,  the  question  of  the  extension  of  slave  territory  had 
been  boiling  in  the  ranks  of  the  old  parties,  growing  more  noisy 
and  more  violent  as  the  Mexican  War  came  on,  and  still  further 
annexation  for  the  benefit  of  the  South  seemed  inevitable.  Men 
were  making  reputations  as  anti-slavery  leaders  in  both  Whig 
and  Democratic  parties ;  splits  over  slavery  questions  took  place 
in  State  organizations;  John  P.  Hale,  in  New  Hampshire,  for 
doing  the  same  thing  that  Thomas  Morris  had  done,  received 
Morris's  punishment,  but,  instead  of  dropping  unnoticed,  he 
carried  with  him  in  revolt  a  large  section  of  his  party.  Still 
the  Liberty  men  clung  to  their  old  isolation.  It  was  in  fact 
an  impossible  situation :  either  the  Liberty  party  must  use  the 
existing  circumstances  to  its  profit,  or  it  must  inevitably  fall 
to  pieces. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    LIBERTY  PARTY   IN   THE   WILMOT    PROVISO 
CONTROVERSY. 

1846-1848. 

IN  1848  the  Liberty  men  were  confronted  with  a  new  set  o 
conditions,  which  gave  them  unexpected  allies.  Before  going 
on  into  the  history  of  the  memorable  campaign  of  1848,  we 
must  clearly  understand  the  complications  caused  by  the  issue  of 
territorial  slavery.  Although  in  the  years  before  1840  the  mass  of 
the  people  in  the  Northwest  declined  to  follow  the  abolitionists, 
and  repudiated  the  Liberty  party,  it  was  not  because  they  liked 
slavery  more,  but  agitation  and  innovation  less.  They  wanted 
above  all  things  to  preserve  the  status  quo,  and  objected  to 
abolitionism  because  it  sought  innovation ;  but  they  were  just 
as  likely  to  object  to  any  alteration  of  the  existing  state  of 
things  in  favor  of  slavery.  This  fact  was  first  clearly 
brought  out  in  the  Missouri  Compromise  struggle,  when  the 
North  unmistakably  showed  that  it  was  opposed  to  the  exten- 
sion of  slave  territory.  Again,  after  1836,  when  the  project  of 
annexing  Texas  was  agitated,  signs  of  a  distinctly  Northern 
attitude  appeared  in  the  form  of  legislative  protests,  such  as 
that  of  one  House  of  the  Indiana  legislature  in  I836.1  In  1837 
there  were  some  public  meetings  which  resolved  that  it  was 
"  inexpedient  and  ruinous  to  the  best  interests  of  the  United 
States  of  America  to  admit  the  province  of  Texas  into  this 
government."2  In  1838  a  committee  of  the  Michigan  House 
of  Representatives  reported,  on  January  19,  a  joint  resolution 

1  Anti-Slavery  Examiner,  No.  8:  Correspondence  between  F.  H.  Elmore 
andj.  G.  Birney,  1838,  p.  14,  note. 
a  Philanthropist,  Oct.  24,  1837. 


106  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

declaring  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  would  "  create  discon- 
tent which  might  endanger  the  stability  of  the  Union,"  and 
instructing  the  Senators  and  Representatives  to  oppose  the 
project;  and  this  resolution  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  42 
to  4 ; l  a  similar  report  in  the  Senate  seems  to  have  produced 
no  result.2  In  Ohio,  B.  F.  Wade  reported  from  a  select  Senate 
committee  a  strong  series  of  resolutions  condemning  the  pro- 
posed annexation  of  Texas  as  "unjust,  inexpedient  and  destruc- 
tive of  the  peace,  safety  and  well-being  of  the  nation ;  "  and  it 
passed  both  Houses  by  large  majorities.3  These  protests 
indicate  that  in  1837-38  the  same  legislatures  that  passed 
resolutions  condemning  abolitionists  were  aware  of  the  objec- 
tion to  the  extension  of  the  area  of  slavery. 

After  the  election  of  1844  had  seemed  to  show  that  the 
country  would  sanction  annexation,  the  project  advanced 
rapidly  to  its  consummation,  in  the  last  days  of  Tyler's  ad- 
ministration. Since  the  Democratic  party,  which  carried  all 
the  Northwest  except  Ohio,  was  committed  in  favor  of  annexa- 
tion, no  protest  was  raised  in  Indiana  and  Michigan,  where 
objections  had  been  made  seven  years  before;  and  Michigan 
even  went  so  far  as  to  instruct  its  Senators  and  Representatives 
"  to  use  a}l  proper  exertions  "  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  "  at 
the  earliest  practical  period." 4  Ohio,  which  was  under  Whig 
control,  continued  its  opposition  to  slavery  extension  by  pass- 
ing resolutions,  on  January  13,  1845,  instructing  its  Senators 
to  oppose  the  annexation  of  Texas  on  anti-slavery  grounds.5 
Both  the  Senators,  however,  Allen  and  Tappan,  were  Demo- 
crats, and  felt  no  obligation  to  regard  the  wishes  of  a  Whig 
State  legislature.  Their  disregard  of  the  instructions  is  said 
to  have  aroused  no  little  irritation  even  in  the  Democratic 
press  of  the  State;  but  in  Ohio  there  was  nothing  like  the 
popular  and  legislative  protests,  party  upheavals,  bolts,  and 

1  Philanthropist,  Feb.  13,  1838. 

2  Report  of  a  Committee  of  the  Senate  on  State  Affairs  in  relation  to  the 
Annexation  of  Texas,  etc.,  1838. 

8  Philanthropist,  Jan.  30,  1838  ;  Laws  of  Ohio  (1837-38),  407. 

4  Laws  of  Michigan  (1844-45),  154. 

5  Laws  of  Ohio  (1844-45),  437  J  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  22,  1845. 


WHIGS  OPPOSE  NEW  TERRITORY.  IO/ 

other  interesting  events  that  disturbed  the  Eastern  States  at 
this  time.  No  Northwestern  Representatives  except  Giddings 
and  later  Jacob  Brinkerhoff  made  anti-slavery  reputations ;  for 
in  these  Ohio  River  States  the  Southern- born  element  still 
controlled  politics,  and  in  Michigan  the  prominence  of  Lewis 
Cass  kept  the  State  from  joining  its  natural  allies  in  New 
England  in  opposing  slavery  extension. 

When  the  Mexican  War  broke  out,  a  few  conservative  Whig 
papers,  like  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  protested ;   but  the  martial 
temper  of  the  Northwest  was  too  strong  to  allow  much  opposi- 
tion.    Legislatures  of  several  of  the  States  adopted  resolutions 
laying  the  blame  of  hostilities  on  the  perfidy  of  Mexico,  and 
urging  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war;    and  for  a  time  the 
undercurrent  of  Northern  feeling  was  buried  by  an  outburst  of 
militarism.     When,  with  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  war, 
came  the  prospect  of  new  annexations,  this  feeling  rose  to  view 
once  more.     In  every  Northwestern  State  the  Whig  party,  which 
since  1844  had  been  more  or  less  avowedly  anti-slavery,  became  1 
strongly  in  favor  of  excluding  slavery  from  all  newly  acquired 
territory  ;  and  in  the  northern  counties  of  the  four  southernmost  ) 
States,  and  in  many  localities  in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  anti- 
slavery  Democrats  began  to  adopt  the  same  position.     It  was 
the  South  which   now  threatened   the  status  quo,  and   North-   j 
western  conservatism  found  itself  at  once  ranged  on  the  other  J 
side. 

In  1846  the  Wilmot  Proviso  discussion  began  to  be  active 
in  the  Northwest;  and  by  1847  numbers  of  Whig  newspapers 
had  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  it.  "  We  are  against  any 
new  territory,"  said  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  "  any  new  slave 
territory  .  .  .  and  against  extending  the  constitutional  in- 
equality in  favor  of  slave-holders  beyond  the  states  already 
in  the  Union."1  "We  are  satisfied,"  remarked  the  Ohio  State 
Journal,  "  that  the  free  states  will  never  consent  to  the  annexa- 
tion to  this  republic  of  slave  territory."  2  The  Chicago  Journal 
repeated  the  foregoing,  and  added :  "  We  will  always  be  found 
on  the  side  of  freedom  against  oppression  whatever  shape  it 
assumes.  The  Whig  party  has  a  great  duty  to  perform  in  this 

1  Oct.  7,  1847.  2  Quoted  in  National  Era,  Aug.  12,  1847. 


108  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

matter,  ...  to  avoid  on  the  one  hand  the  untempered  zeal  and 
fanaticism  of  the  Liberty  party,  and  on  the  other  the  opposite 
extreme  into  which  warring  against  this  is  too  apt  to  lead."  l 

In  this  year  began  a  "  boom  "  (to  use  the  modern  phrase)  for 
General  Taylor.  With  memories  of  1840  ringing  in  their  ears, 
Whigs  found  the  idea  of  a  military  candidate  very  fascinating ; 
and,  as  the  year  advanced,  newspapers  began  with  increasing 
fervor  to  advocate  his  nomination.  But  Taylor  was  a  slave- 
holder, and  his  views  on  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  as  well  as  on  all 
other  Whig  measures,  were  entirely  unknown.  Among  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  in  the  Northwest  much  repugnance  was  exhibited 
toward  his  candidacy,  though  in  most  of  the  States  it  was  not 
loudly  expressed.  A  correspondent  wrote'  from  Indiana  to  the 
Wisconsin  American  Freeman  :  "  A  strong  distrust  of  Taylor  can 
be  found  among  Hoosier  Whigs,  but  an  unholy  fear  of  party  pro- 
scription restrains  multitudes  from  saying  or  doing  anything."  2 
The  Chicago  Journal,  whose  anti-slavery  utterances  are  quoted 
above,  became  alarmed  at  the  threatening  attitude  of  anti- 
Taylor  Whigs  in  the  East,  and  said :  "  However  much  the 
Whigs  of  Massachusetts  and  the  North  may  differ  from  their 
political  brethren  in  other  states  in  reference  to  slavery  and  its 
evils,  yet  in  National  politics  they  are  simply  Whigs."  a 

There  was  one  place  in  the  Northwest,  however,  where  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  were  thoroughly  aroused  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  From  the  beginning  of  the  year 
1847  the  Western  Reserve  had  been  filled  with  ominous  mut- 
terings.  Whig  conventions  in  Cuyahoga  and  Trumbull  coun- 
ties resolved  to  "  support  no  man  unless  he  is  openly  pledged 
against  any  further  annexation  of  territory  or  extension  of 
slavery." 4  The  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  founded  by  E.  S. 
Hamlin  as  a  radical  Whig  paper,  declared  "  that  at  the  next 
Presidential  election  we  will  not  support  a  slave-holder  for  Presi- 
dent or  Vice  President."  5  Still  more  significant  was  an  incident 
at  a  meeting  in  Ashtabula  County :  Giddings,  hitherto  an  inde- 

1  July  i,  1846.  2  American  Freeman,  Sept.  I,  1847. 

8  Dec.  5,  1846. 

4  National  Era,  Sept.  16,  1847;  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  Jan.  4,  1848. 
«  Jan.  3,  1847. 


GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO  SLAVERY  EXTENSION.    109 

pendent  Whig,  "  became  much  excited,  and  boldly  proclaimed 
.  .  .  '  Sooner  shall  this  right  arm  (lifted  above  his  head)  fall 
from  its  socket  and  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth 
than  I  will  vote  for  Zach.  Taylor  for  President  .  .  .  and  I  think 
I  can  say  the  same  for  every  true  Whig  of  Ashtabula.'  "  The 
meeting  then  resolved  with  enthusiasm  that  "  we  will  support  no 
man  .  .  .  who  is  not  fully  and  publicly  pledged  against  the 
extension  of  slavery."1 

While  anti-slavery  Whigs  were  growing  alarmed  at  the  pro- 
gress of  Taylor's  candidacy,  anti-slavery  Democrats  in  the 
Northwest  had  been  showing  equal  solicitude  in  regard  to 
the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  As  early  as  June, 
1846,  the  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,  the  leading  Democratic  paper 
on  the  Reserve,  said  boldly:  "  The  West  has  but  to  say  that  no 
more  slave  territory  shall  be  annexed  to  this  Union,  and  the  dark 
tide  of  slavery  will  be  stayed.  ...  It  is  time  that  the  lovers  of 
freedom  should  unite  in  opposing  the  common  enemy  by  fixing 
bounds  to  their  aggression."  2  In  the  same  year  the  Hamilton 
County  Democratic  Convention  demanded  that  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  should  be  extended  "over  our  Pacific  empire  present 
and  future."3  In  1847  Democratic  papers  in  Ohio  continued 
with  increasing  emphasis.  "  We  shall  not  discuss  the  question 
whether  the  exclusion  of  slavery  [from  the  Territories]  is  a 
needful  rule,"  said  the  Ohio  Press;  "  public  opinion  has  long 
since  decided  it.  Such  is  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of 
the  people  of  every  Northern  state." 4  The  Sandusky  Mirror 
defied  Southern  dictation :  "  So  far  from  the  conduct  of  the 
South  being  any  reason  for  yielding  in  the  matter,  we  see  in  it 
only  additional  reasons  for  standing  by  the  Proviso  and  carrying 
out  its  principles  regardless  of  all  opposition."  6  Democratic 
conventions  for  Paulding,  Richland,  Jefferson,  Columbiana,  and 
several  other  counties  passed  resolutions  against  the  extension 

1  Cleveland  American,  May  26,  1847  ;  National  Era,  June  10,  1847. 

2  Quoted  in  New  York  Tribune,  June  29,  1846. 

8  National  Era,  June  29,  1848.  4  Quoted  ibid.,  Sept.  16,  1847. 

6  Quoted  ibid.,  Dec.  9,  1847.  Similar  sentiments  were  uttered  by  the 
Springfield  Democrat,  Cincinnati  Morning  Signal,  Ohio  Patriot,  and 
Wayne  County  Democrat.  Ibid.,  Sept.  16,  1847. 


1 10  WILMOT  PROVISO  CONTROVERSY. 

of  slavery.1  In  Michigan  some  Democratic  papers  spoke  out 
boldly.  Said  the  Ann  Arbor  True  Democrat,  in  October  :  "  The 
North  is  strong  enough  to  submit  no  longer  like  Southern 
slaves  to  the  dictation  of  the  South,  especially  when  it  is  asked 
to  extend  slavery  beyond  its  natural  boundaries."  2  In  Illinois 
the  Democrats  of  the  northeastern  counties,  much  in  sympathy 
with  the  Barnburner  faction  of  the  New  York  Democracy,  were 
uttering  vigorous  sentiments.  Said  the  Chicago  Democrat, 
owned  by  John  Wentvvorth :  "  The  acquisition  of  territory  is 
unavoidable,  .  .  .  the  question  then  must  arise,  shall  the  wide 
domain  which  will  be  added  to  our  country  be  given  up  to 
slavery?"3  The  Jacksonville  Prairie  Argus  said:  "We 
acknowledge  and  will  ever  defend  the  vested  rights  of  the 
South.  But  here  our  acknowledgement  and  defence  con- 
clude. We  will  never  consent  to  an  extension  of  slavery  over 
countries  which  we  may  acquire  and  in  which  it  does  not 
exist."  4 

The  growing  feeling  in  the  Northwest  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  led  to  the  passage  of  strong  resolutions  in  two  State 
legislatures.  On  February  15,  1847,  the  Ohio  legislature 
adopted  a  joint  resolution  instructing  the  Senators  and  request- 
ing the  Representatives  to  vote  so  as  to  secure  the  exclusion  of 
slavery  "  from  Oregon  Territory,  and  any  other  territory  which 
may  hereafter  be  annexed  to  the  United  States."5  At  the  same 
time  Michigan  spoke  more  directly  by  resolving  "  That  in  the 
acquisition  of  any  more  territory  .  .  .  we  deem  it  the  duty  of 
the  general  government  to  extend  over  the  same  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  with  all  its  rights,  privileges,  conditions  and  immuni- 
ties." 6  J.  H.  Cravens,  a  Whig,  introduced  similar  resolutions 
into  the  Indiana  legislature ;  but  they  failed  to  pass.7 

Had  this  not  been  an  "  off"  year  in  politics,  the  question 
would  undoubtedly  have  played  a  part  in  elections ;  but  Ohio 
and  Illinois  were  without  any  important  contests,  and  in  Michi- 

1  National  Era,  June  29,  Sept.  30,  Dec.  9,  1847. 

2  Quoted  ibid.,  Dec.  9,  1847.  3  Quoted  ibid.,  Sept.  16,  1847. 
4  Quoted  ibid.,  June  10,  1847.               5  Laws  of  Ohio  (1846-47),  214. 
6  Laws  of  Michigan  (1846-47),  194. 

T  National  Era,  Feb.  4,  1847. 


CHANGED  POSITION  OF  LIBERTY  LEADERS.       1 1 1 

gan  and  Wisconsin  interest  was  very  slight.  In  Indiana  only, 
where  there  was  an  election  of  Congressmen  in  the  summer  of 
1847,  did  the  Wilmot  Proviso  enter  largely  into  the  result.  The 
effect  on  the  Northwest  will  be  shown  later. 

It  was  evident,  then,  by  the  summer  of  1847,  that  anti-slavery 
questions  bade  fair  to  play  in  the  coming  Presidential  campaign 
an  even  larger  part  than  in  1844,  and  that  in  all  probability 
they  would  be  accompanied  by  great  party  changes.  What  was 
the  Liberty  party  to  do  in  this  contingency?  It  was  an  un- 
doubted fact  that  since  1844  anti-slavery  sentiment  had  increased 
a  hundredfold  in  each  of  the  old  parties ;  and  yet  the  Liberty 
party  had  come  to  a  standstill.  Chase  stated  the  case  very 
clearly  in  a  letter  to  John  P.  Hale :  "  I  see  no  prospect  of 
greater  future  progress,  but  rather  of  less.  As  fast  as  we  can 
bring  public  sentiment  right  the  other  parties  will  approach  our 
ground  and  keep  sufficiently  close  to  it  to  prevent  any  great 
accession  to  our  numbers.  If  this  be  so,  the  Liberty  party  can 
never  hope  to  accomplish  anything  as  such,  but  only  through 
its  indirect  action  upon  the  other  parties."  l 

In  such  circumstances,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Chase,  Leavitt, 
Stanton,  and  others  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  time  to 
adopt  a  new  policy,  and  by  some  appropriate  nomination  and 
platform  to  place  the  Liberty  party  in  a  position  to  absorb 
.discontented  Whigs  and  Democrats  without  insisting  on  the  full 
Liberty  creed.  Such  a  proposition  ran  directly  counter  to 
Liberty  precedent.  Thus  far  it  had  been  the  rule  to  vote  for 
no  man  who  would  not  separate  from  the  old  parties ;  coalition 
had  been  decried  as  treason  to  liberty,  as  practical  perjury,  as 
a  sin  against  God's  law.  In  the  Northwest  and  in  the  country 
at  large  scarcely  any  cases  of  Liberty  fusion  occurred  in  the  first 
five  years  of  the  party's  existence.  In  Lorain  County,  on  the 
Western  Reserve,  E.  S.  Hamlin,  an  anti-slavery  Whig,  had 
received  Liberty  votes  in  i843;2  and  in  Wayne  County,  Indi- 
ana, there  was  one  case  of  Democratic  and  Liberty  fusion  in 
1844  ;3  Indiana  furnished  another  case  in  1845.  J-  H.  Cravens, 

1  May  12,  1847:  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  312. 

2  Philanthropist,  Nov.  8,  1843. 
8  Emancipator,  Aug.  28,  1844. 


112  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

a  Virginian  born,  who  "  hated  human  slavery  with  an  intensity 
akin  to  madness,"  had  lost  a  renomination  to  Congress  because 
of  his  anti-slavery  opinions.  On  becoming  a  candidate  for 
the  legislature,  he  issued  an  address  giving  under  thirteen 
heads  his  views  on  slavery,  which  agreed  substantially  with  the 
opinions  of  Giddings.  "  I  do  not  believe  the  Whigs,"  he  con- 
cluded, "  will  incorporate  a  pro-slavery  article  in  their  political 
creed.  Should  they  do  so  they  will  drive  many  good  and  true 
men  from  their  ranks  in  grief  and  sorrow."  This  address  won 
the  hearts  of  the  Liberty  men  of  his  district;  they  resolved, 
under  the  lead  of  S.  S.  Harding,  to  support  him  ;  and,  in  spite 
of  disaffection  in  his  own  party,  he  was  elected.1  Except  in 
these  cases,  nearly  every  attempt  to  induce  Liberty  men  to  sup- 
port candidates  of  the  old  parties  had  been  defeated,  the  nearest 
approach  to  success  being  in  Indiana  in  1845,  when  the  Liberty 
convention  for  the  Tenth  Congressional  District  refused  by 
a  majority  of  one  to  support  the  Whig  candidate,  who  had 
made  a  direct  appeal  for  their  support.2 

Perhaps  the  place  where  the  Liberty  leaders  found  it  hardest 
to   keep    their   followers  true  to  the  party  creed  was  in   the 
Twentieth  Ohio  Congressional  district  on  the  Western  Reserve, 
where  Giddings  enjoyed  unmeasured  popularity.     Plis  relations 
to  the  Liberty  party  up  to  1844  have  been  already  referred  to 
n-A^is  peculiar.     In  1842,  when  he  was  censured,  and  resigned  from 
Congress,  Liberty  men  voted  heartily  to  secure  his  re-election  ; 
and  Chase  and  some  other  Liberty  leaders  tried  hard  to  get 
him  to  join  the  new  party.3     He  did  not  think,  however,  that 
yV*  the  time  had  come  for  an  organization  separate  from  the  Whigs, 

and  explained  his  reasons,  over  the  name  "  Pacificus,"  in  a  series 
of  letters  published  in  the  Ashtabula  Sentinel.  The  result  was 
that  strict  Liberty  men  found  themselves  unable  to  support  him  In 
1843,  and  nominated  Edward  Wade.  True,  as  the  Liberty  Herald 
of  Trumbull  County  admitted,  Giddings  had  done  all  that  a  man 

1  W.  W.  Woollen,  Biographical  and  Historical  Sketches  of  Early  In- 
diana, 276. 

2  Emancipator,  May  28,  July  30,  1845. 

8  See  letters  of  Chase  to  Giddings,  in  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  of  J.  R.  Gid- 
dings, 130. 


. 
v     t 


GIDDINGS  AND   THE  LIBERTY  PARTY.  113 

could  do  in  Congress,  but  he  was  still  a  member  of  the  Whig 
party.  "No  Liberty  man  therefore  could  vote  for  Mr.  Giddings 
without  voting  with  and  for  the  Whig  party."  The  Liberty 
Herald  concluded  this  exhibition  of  rigid  partisanship  by  cry- 
ing, with  whimsical  inconsistency :  "  Liberty  men,  abolitionists, 
Whigs,  Democrats,  and  all,  come  out  and  vote  for  Edward 
Wade !  " ! 

Giddings  at  once  took  up  the  challenge  thus  offered.  So 
great  was  the  effect  of  his  criticisms  of  the  Liberty  party  that 
in  this  election,  wherever  he  spoke,  its  vote  fell  off.2  In  1844 
the  breach  widened ;  for  the  Liberty  men  found  in  Giddings  j  *>V 
a  formidable  obstacle  to  their  progress,  and  Giddings  recog- 
nized in  them  a  possible  source  of  danger  to  the  Whig  party. 
J.  Hutchins  and  L.  King  each  had  joint  debates  with  him ; 
but,  in  spite  of  all  Liberty  efforts,  his  popularity  was  so  great  as 
to  hold  the  Wrhigs  firm,  and  even  to  draw  from  the  Liberty 
ranks.  The  result  was  that,  in  the  Presidential  election,  Ashta- 
bula  County,  where  he  had  been  working,  cast  a  heavier  major- 
ity for  Henry  Clay  than  any  other  county  in  the  country.3  The 
animosity  of  the  Liberty  men  toward  Giddings  now  became 
bitter  in  the  last  degree.  He  had  believed  implicitly  in  the 
Garland  forgery,  and  had  used  it  with  deadly  effect;  and 
when  its  spurious  character  was  proved,  he  couched  his  apol- 
ogy in  terms  that  added  vigor  to  the  Liberty  hatred.  He 
had  believed  in  it,  he  said,  because  "  no  man  of  the  intelli- 
gence which  Mr.  Birney  was  supposed  to  possess  could  close 
his  eyes  to  the  consequences  which  were  likely  to  result  from  a 
division  of  those  who  were  opposed  to  the  annexation  of  Texas," 
and  because  collusion  with  Democrats  was  the  only  rational 
explanation.  He  still  believed  that  Birney  was  in  league  with 
Pblk,  and  that  the  letter  "  was  a  fabrication  based  almost  entirely 
upon  truths  existing  previously  to  the  writing  of  the  letter  and 
wholly  independent  of  it."  4  The  anger  of  Liberty  men  was  so 
great  that  when,  in  1845,  Abby  Kelly  and  Stephen  S.  Foster 
made  a  lecturing  tour  on  the  Western  Reserve,  the  Liberty 

1  Liberty  Herald,  Sept.  28,  1843.  2  Ibid.,  Oct.  12,  1843. 

8  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  ofj.  R.  Giddings,  167. 
4  Ohio  American,  April  24,  1845. 

8 


114  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

Herald,  in  terms  that  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  less  than 
scurrilous,  accused  Giddings  of  having  imported  them  for  the 
purpose  of  breaking  up  the  party.1 

Yet  his  popularity  with  the  masses  was  still  so  great  that,  in 
1846,  a  Liberty  convention  at  Painesville  resolved  that  the  Dis- 
trict Congressional  Convention  ought  not  to  nominate,  but  that 
it  should  leave  the  field  open  in  his  favor.  The  District  Con- 
vention promptly  repudiated  the  suggestion,  saying:  "We 
stand  ready  to  unite  with  Whigs  or  Democrats  in  a  political 
organization  for  the  overthrow  of  slavery,  but  we  spurn  all  over- 
tures of  union  for  the  attainment  of  any  mere  party  triumphs."2 
Nevertheless,  Liberty  men  on  the  Reserve  could  not  help  under- 
standing that  Giddings  really  represented  their  principles  in 
Congress,  nor  could  seven  years  of  separatism  prevent  them 
from  desiring  to  support  him.  The  Cleveland  American  found 
it  necessary  to  devote  pages  to  a  definition  of  its  position.  In 
January,  1847,  it  said:  "We  had  supposed  that  no  one  could 
misunderstand  by  this  time  our  views  in  relation  to  Mr.  Gid- 
dings. .  .  .  And  yet  a  friend  assures  us  that  when  we  publish 
a  speech  of  his  without  comment,  our  views  and  motives  are 
liable  to  misconstruction.  ...  As  a  faithful  anti-slavery  Repre- 
sentative we  give  and  have  always  given  him  full  credit,  but  it 
is  his  deportment  to  the  Liberty  Party  ...  his  utter  refusal  to 
say  after  all  that  he  would  not  continue  to  vote  for  slave-holders 
.  .  .  these  and  other  inconsistencies  we  have  condemned  and 
shall  continue  to  condemn.  ...  It  has  been  fear  of  the  Liberty 
Party  that  has  driven  the  wire-pullers  of  his  party  to  keep  him 
in  Congress  .  .  .  and  yet  he  will  condemn  and  abuse  and  mis- 
represent the  Liberty  Party  without  stint,  and  after  election 
taunt  it  with  having  been  unable  to  elect  its  candidates  or  with 
having  decreased  its  vote  because  Liberty  men  had  been  de- 
ceived and  wheedled  by  his  blandishments."3  The  idea  of 
rugged  Joshua  Giddings  offering  blandishments  to  any  body 
of  men  may  seem  ludicrous  ;  but  to  the  Western  Reserve  Liberty 
men  it  was  a  very  real  danger.  So  great  was  their  suspicion 

1  Liberty  Herald,  April  17,  1845. 

2  Cleveland  American,  Sept.  2,  1846. 
8  Ibid.,  Jan.  20,  1847. 


OBSTACLES   TO  ANTI-SLAVERY  FUSION. 


that,  in  1847,  when  Giddings  in  his  wrath  swore  publicly  never 
to  vote  for  Zachary  Taylor,  his  action  was  looked  upon  as  a 
Whig  trick.  "  That  a  deep  plot,"  said  the  Cleveland  American, 
"  is  laid  by  the  universal  Whig  party  to  absorb  or  use  up  the 
Liberty  movement  in  the  canvass  of  1848,  is  evident."1 

When  such  a  man  as  Giddings  was  looked  upon  as  unfit  for 
Liberty  support,  it  was  evident  that  Chase,  Bailey,  and  the 
others  who  favored  a  nomination  for  the  sake  of  expediency, 
had  a  hard  task  before  them.  In  1847,  however,  the  strictness 
of  Liberty  action  seemed  in  several  places  to  be  breaking  down. 
In  Ohio,  in  places  where  there  were  no  Liberty  nominations, 
it  was  stated  that  "  there  was  considerable  fusion  or  rather 
voting  of  Liberty  men  for  old  party  candidates;"2  and  in  Indi- 
ana, in  the  election  of  congressmen  there  was  a  general  return 
to  fusion  and  to  the  old  system  of  interrogation.  This  election 
has  peculiar  interest  as  the  only  one  in  the  Northwest  in  which 
the  Liberty  party  turned  its  back  on  the  usual  programme  and 
gave  itself  up  to  coalition.  One  reason  for  this  course  was 
probably  that  its  adherents  were  few  and  were  tired  of  third- 
party  action;  but  another  reason,  without  doubt,  lay  in  the 
interest  displayed  by  Indiana  Whigs  and  Democrats  in  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery  extension.  Perhaps,  also,  they  took  to  heart  the 
case  of  New  Hampshire,  where  in  1845-46  a  fusion  of  Whigs, 
Liberty  men,  and  independent  Democrats  had  overthrown  for 
the  moment  the  "  Loco-foco  "  rule  of  the  State,  and  had  sent 
to  Congress  John  P.  Hale  and  Amos  Tuck  as  the  first  inde- 
pendent anti-slavery  men.  If  this  departure  from  the  Liberty 
programme  had  proved  so  successful,  why  might  not  another 
have  a  like  success? 

Early  in  April,  signs  of  an  intention  to  coalesce  led  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Chronicle  to  insist  on  straight-out  independent  action ;  3 
but  such  advice  was  of  no  avail.  In  the  summer  Liberty  nomi- 
nations for  Congress  were  made  in  three  districts ;  but  all  of  the 
nominees  eventually  withdrew  in  favor  of  the  Whig  candidates. 

1  Cleveland  American,  May  26,  1847. 

2  National  Era,  Oct.  28,  1847;   National  Press  and  Herald,  Oct.  20, 
1847. 

8  Quoted  National  Era,  April  29,  1847. 


Il6  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

In  the  Fourth  District,  the  centre  of  anti-slavery  sentiment,  the 
Wayne  County  Convention  resolved  "  That  to  vote  for  any  man, 
on  account  of  his  antislavery  profession,  to  fill  any  office,  who 
would  under  any  circumstances  support  the  candidate  of  [the 
Whig  or  Democratic]  party  would  be  an  act  of  consummate 
folly."  l  A  district  convention  also  resolved  that  "  there  is  no 
safety  or  propriety  for  us  as  Liberty  men  in  adopting  or  pursu- 
ing any  other  course  than  that  of  nominating  good  and  true  men 
who  will  not  bow  the  knee  to  the  dark  spirit  of  slavery"  ;2  but, 
in  spite  of  these  resolutions,  T.  R.  Stanford,  the  Liberty  candi- 
date, withdrew  in  favor  of  C.  B.  Smith,  the  Whig  nominee.  In 
the  Fifth  District  the  Liberty  party  propounded  a  series  of 
questions  to  the  Whig  and  Democratic  candidates  regarding 
the  admission  of  new  slave  States,  the  Mexican  War,  and 
other  matters  not  usually  deemed  of  vital  importance  by  abo- 
litionists ;  and  it  nominated  D.  W.  De  Puy,  the  editor  of  the 
Indiana  Freeman,  with  instructions  to  withdraw  should  either 
of  the  other  candidates  answer  properly.  This  he  did,  in  favor 
of  McCarthy,  the  Whig,  although  McCarthy's  answers  were  not 
very  strong.3 

Even  in  districts  also  where  abolitionism  had  little  strength, 
the  slavery  question  disturbed  the  course  of  politics.  In  the 
Third  District,  on  the  nomination  of  a  "War"  man  by  the 
Whigs,  there  was  a  bolt  centring  around  J.  H.  Cravens ;  but 
the  latter  eventually  withdrew.  In  the  Second  District  H.  J. 
Henly,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  renomination,  who  had 
voted  against  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  became  so  alarmed  at  the 
consequences  that  "  he  declared  most  emphatically  and  un- 
equivocally .  .  .  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
and  had  always  been  in  favor  of  it  ...  and  that  he  intended 
to  vote  for  it  and  support  it  with  all  his  power,  and  farther  that 
he  had  always  supported  it  when  introduced,  and  /tad  never 
voted  against  it"  ^  When  the  election  occurred,  the  Whigs 
gained  two  members  on  this  issue:  Owen,  Democratic,  lost  in  a 
strong  Democratic  district;  Henly's  majority  of  843  in  1845 
was  reduced  to  40;  Wick's  majority  was  reduced  from  1,400  to 

1  National  Era,  July  8,  1847.  2  Ibid.,  July  29,  1847. 

8  Ibid.,  July  i,  29,  1847.  4  Ibid.,  Jan.  6,  1848. 


THE  INDIANA   ELECTION  OF  1847.  II? 

298,  —  the  loss  resulting  in  each  case  from  the  candidate's  record 
against  the  Wilmot  Proviso.1 

Time  for  maturing  any  well-defined  plans  was  not,  however, 
permitted  to  the  advocates  of  a  new  policy;  for  in  the  spring  of 
1847  began  a  movement  to  call  the  National  Nominating  Con- 
vention in  the  ensuing  fall.  This  was  exactly  what  the  expedi- 
ency men  did  not  want ;  for  by  an  early  nomination  the  party 
might  put  out  of  its  power  an  opportunity  to  profit  by  the  rising 
Wilmot  Proviso  excitement.  The  coming  session  of  Congress 
promised  to  be  of  immense  importance,  and  a  nomination  and  a 
platform  adopted  a  year  before  the  election  might  prove  hope- 
lessly unsuited  to  the  conditions. 

A  brisk  newspaper  controversy  sprang  up  over  the  date  of 
the  convention.  The  Eastern  press,  and  those  who  favored 
Gerrit  Smith,  William  Goodell,  and  the  new  "  Liberty  League," 
wished  an  early  day;  but  most  of  the  Western  papers,  except 
those  in  frontier  Wisconsin,  preferred  some  time  in  the  spring 
of  1848.  In  Ohio  the  National  Press  and  Herald  strenuously 
opposed.  "We  have  observed  with  regret,"  it.  said,  "  an  effort 
upon  the  part  of  some  influential  Liberty  papers  to  precipitate 
the  party  into  a  nomination  of  its  candidate  for  the  next  Presi- 
dency. Would  it  not  be  better  to  wait  the  developments  of 
next  winter  in  Congress  and  of  the  other  political  parties?"2 
Later  it  argued :  "  There  are  thousands  of  good  men  and  true 
in  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties.  ...  It  would  be  a  great 
object  to  secure  their  co-operation  with  us,  which  can  only  be 
done  by  a  charitable  and  conciliatory  course.  .  .  .  We  are  will- 
ing to  accomplish  it  by  the  sacrifice  of  anything  short  of  our 
own  anti-slavery  principles."  3  It  said  that  the  sentiment  of  Ohio 
was  strongly  in  favor  of  postponement :  "  We  do  not  know  one 
individual  who  has  been  specially  active  and  self-sacrificing  in 
the  Liberty  movement  who  favors  a  nomination  this  fall."4  The 
Cleveland  American  agreed  with  these  sentiments,  as  did  also 
the  Liberty  Advocate,  the  Indiana  Free  Labor  Advocate^  and  the 


1  National  Era,  Aug.  19,  1847. 

2  National  Press  and  Herald,  April  21,  1847. 

8  Ibid.,  June  2,  1847.  4  Ibid.,  June  30,  1847. 


Il8  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

Michigan  Signal  of  Liberty}'  The  Western  Citizen,  of  Chicago, 
said :  "  Our  opinion  is  that  the  Convention  should  not  be  held 
till  the  middle  of  the  month  of  May,  1848.  It  is  folly  for  us  to 
shut  our  eyes  to  the  future  and  act  regardless  of  consequences. 
As  there  is  no  special  haste  for  a  nomination,  let  us  wait  and  see 
what  Providence  and  the  course  of  events  may  develop  for  the 
next  twelve  months  before  we  are  committed  to  our  candidates."2 
The  Michigan  State  Liberty  Convention  in  June,  by  a  three- 
fourths  majority,  passed  a  resolution  in  favor  of  postponement.3 
On  the  other  hand,  the  New  Lisbon  Aurora  in  Ohio,  and  the 
American  Freeman  in  Wisconsin,  desired  an  early  convention. 
"  We  have  been  from  the  beginning  for  an  early  nomination," 
said  the  Freeman;  "  it  is  difficult  for  mankind  at  large  to  be  held 
together  without  a  representative.  .  .  .  Real  anti-slavery  action 
by  either  the  Whig  or  Democratic  party  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion .  .  .  then  why  wait?"4  The  small  band  of  third-party 
men  in  Wisconsin  was  decidedly  more  radical  than  Bailey,  Chase, 
and  other  founders  of  the  party;  for  the  Wisconsin  Liberty 
Association  resolved  to  "  approbate  the  decision  of  the  National 
Committee  of  the  Liberty  Party  to  call  a  convention  to  nomi- 
nate in  the  ensuing  autumn."5 

The  question  was  settled  by  the  Liberty  National  Committee 
appointed  in  1843,  who,  against  the  protests  of  Chase  of  Ohio 
and  Stewart  of  Michigan,  issued  a  call  for  a  convention  on 
October  20,  1847.  On  that  date,  accordingly,  met  at  Buffalo 
the  third  and  last  National  Convention  of  the  Liberty  party. 
There  were  present  one  hundred  and  forty  regular  delegates 
quite  fairly  proportioned  among  the  Northern  States,  including 
twenty-three  from  Ohio,  eight  from  Illinois,  five  from  Michigan, 
four  from  Indiana,  and  three  from  Wisconsin.  Besides  these, 
many  Liberty  League  men  were  present  and  a  considerable 
number  of  voluntary  delegates,  all  of  whom,  according  to  the 
somewhat  irregular  habits  of  anti-slavery  conventions,  partici- 
pated on  an  equal  footing  with  those  regularly  appointed.  The 
Liberty  Leaguers  had  adopted  Spooner's  doctrines ;  and  at  the 

1  National  Era,  June  24,  July  8,  1847. 

2  Quoted  ibid.,  May  20,  1847.  8  Ibid.,  July  8,  1847. 
4  American  Freeman,  June  2,  1847.                     5  Ibid.,  July  28,  1847. 


THE  LAST  NATIONAL  LIBERTY  CONVENTION.     119 

very  outset,  before  the  Convention  was  organized,  Bradburn  of 
Cleveland  moved  not  to  nominate  any  one  who  did  not  believe 
that  slavery  was  unconstitutional.  This  motion  was  laid  on  the 
table;  and  the  convention  organized,  with  Western  men  as 
usual  in  prominent  positions.  Sam  Lewis l  was  president,  and 
six  of  the  sixteen  vice-presidents  and  secretaries  were  North- 
western men. 

The  proceedings  of  the  convention  are  too  much  involved 
with  parliamentary  questions  and  with  discussions  over  methods 
of  voting  to  be  discussed  in  detail ;  for  the  purposes  of  this  study, 
it  will  be  enough  to  summarize  their  results.  The  struggle  be- 
gan when  Joshua  Leavitt  reported  a  series  of  resolutions  from 
the  Business  Committee.  The  first  of  these  resolutions,  asserting 
the  object  of  the  Liberty  party  to  be  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  a 
constitutional  manner,  was  adopted  unanimously.  The  second, 
declaring  that  the  Constitution  gave  the  government  no  power 
to  institute  slavery,  was  also  adopted  unanimously.  The  third 
resolution,  however,  which  stated  that  slavery  was  unconstitu- 
tional in  the  Territories,  proved  a  crucial  point ;  for  here  Gerrit 
Smith  offered  an  amendment  that  slavery  was  unconstitutional 
in  the  States  also.  A  long  discussion  followed  between  Smith, 
Goodell,  and  others  on  one  side,  and  the  conservatives  on  the 
other.  In  the  evening  session  the  amendment  came  to  a  vote 
and  was  rejected,  137  to  195.  The  fourth  resolution  stated  that 
the  duty  of  anti-slavery  members  of  Congress  was  to  vote  for 
the  repeal  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  for  the  repeal 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1793,  and  against  the  introduction 
of  slavery  into  the  Territories.  More  debate  followed;  but  the 
amendments  of  Gerrit  Smith  were  all  voted  down,  and  the 
remaining  resolutions  were  adopted  without  a  struggle. 

When  the  resolution  to  nominate  was  offered,  Chase  moved 
to  postpone  action  until  May,  1848  ;  but  after  a  long  debate  the 
convention  rejected  his  amendment,  37  to  128,  and  proceeded  to 
nominate.  Here  the  expediency  party  made  a  great  effort, 
determined  that  if  they  must  nominate  they  would  present  the 
right  kind  of  man.  Ever  since  the  spring  they  had  been  advo- 

1  Lewis's  name  was  Samuel ;  but  he  was  always  called  Sam  by  the  press, 
an  infallible  sign  of  popularity. 


120  WILMOT  PROVISO   CONTROVERSY. 

eating  the  selection  of  John  P.  Hale,  now  the  national  anti- 
slavery  champion  in  the  United  States  Senate,  whose  election 
had  been  brought  about  by  Whig,  Democratic,  and  Liberty  votes. 
He  was  not  technically  a  member  of  the  Liberty  party,  a  fact 
which,  in  the  eyes  of  dyed-in-the-wool  abolitionists,  was  enough 
to  condemn  him ;  but  when  Lewis  Tappan,  one  of  the  originators 
of  anti-slavery  action,  read  before  the  convention  a  letter  from 
Hale  expressing  his  willingness  to  run  on  a  Liberty  ticket, 
scruples  were  so  quickly  quieted  that  on  the  first  ballot  Hale 
had  103  votes  to  Gerrit  Smith's  44,  and  was  thereby  nominated. 

To  designate  a  Vice-President  two  ballots  were  necessary, 
Leicester  King  being  successful  over  Owen  ^Lovejoy  on  the 
second.  The  convention  then  appointed  a  National  Liberty 
Committee,  and  after  an  address  by  Sam  Lewis  adjourned.  It 
had  been  in  some  respects  a  drawn  battle :  Chase  and  the 
Western  men  who  favored  postponement  had  been  defeated, 
but  had  secured  the  nomination  of  Hale ;  the  conservatives  had 
maintained  the  Liberty  platform  practically  unchanged,  but 
they  would  have  preferred  some  other  candidate.  The  Liberty 
League  people  alone  had  been  routed  at  every  point.1 

Hale's  nomination  aroused  much  discontent  among  the  nar- 
rower Liberty  men  of  the  East ;  but  in  the  West  it  proved  very 
popular.  Only  in  Wisconsin  Territory  did  it  meet  with  dis- 
approval, and  there  it  seemed  to  be  a  bitter  pill.  "  As  for  John 
P.  Hale,"  said  the  American  Freeman,  "we  are  slow  to  believe 
it  necessary  to  leave  the  circle  of  noble  men  who  have  been  the 
life  of  the  cause.  .  .  .  We  will  put  his  name  at  the  head  of  our 
column,  but  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  pledged."2  The 
Wisconsin  Liberty  Association  showed  a  similar  regret  when  it 
resolved  "  That,  although  the  course  taken  by  the  Buffalo  Con- 
vention last  fall  was  of  doubtful  propriety,  .  .  .  yet  if  John  P. 
Hale  shall  be  found  to  espouse  the  great  principle  which  is  the 
basis  of  our  organization  ...  we  will  support  him."3  Even  as 
late  as  the  spring  of  1848,  Wisconsin  leaders  continued  to  protest 
against  Hale's  candidacy,  and  to  show  strong  signs  of  a  desire 
to  join  the  Liberty  League. 

1  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  in  National  Era,  Nov.  n,  1847. 

2  Nov.  10,  1847.  3  American  Freeman,  Feb.  2,  1848. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

COMBINATION   OF   THIRD-PARTY   MEN    ON  THE   FREE 
SOIL  ISSUE. 

1848. 

AFTER  the  Liberty  nomination,  the  prediction  of  Bailey, 
Chase,  Stewart,  the  Cincinnati  Herald,  and  the  Western  Citizen 
proved  true;  for  so  great  was  the  change  in  public  sentiment, 
and  so  high  the  excitement  over  the  question  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  that  by  the  summer  of  1848  national  politics  were  in 
a  state  hardly  dreamed  of  by  Liberty  men  in  October,  1847. 
The  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  which  the  growth  in  both  Whig 
and  Democratic  parties  had  for  two  or  three  years  been  grad-  ^ 
ual,  now  increased  with  unparalleled  rapidity,  until  it  was 
powerful  enough  to  do  in  one  year  what  the  Liberty  party  had 
been  unable  to  do  in  seven,  namely,  to  split  the  old  parties  in 
nearly  every  Northern  State. 

When  the  year  1848  opened,  it  became  almost  certain  that 
Cass  would  receive  the  Democratic  nomination;  but,  although 
he  was  a  representative  Northwestern  pioneer  statesman,  there 
were  very  many  Democrats  in  each  of  the  Northwestern  States 
to  whom  the  prospect  was  anything  but  pleasing.  Anti-slavery 
sentiment  had  much  increased  in  the  ranks  of  the  Democratic 
party.  In  Ohio  the  year  opened  with  a  resolution  in  favor 
of  free  territory  by  the  Hamilton  County  Convention;1  and 
on  January  8  the  Ohio  State  Democratic  Convention,  breaking 
with  all  precedents,  resolved  "  That  the  people  of  Ohio  look 
upon  slavery  as  an  evil  in  any  part  of  the  Union,  and  feel  it 
their  duty  to  prevent  its  increase,  to  mitigate,  and  finally  to 
eradicate  the  evil."  2  This  resolution  was  by  no  means  clear  as 

1  National  Era,  June  29,  1848.  2  True  Democrat,  Jan.  14,  1848. 


122  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

to  the  particular  question  at  issue ;  but,  considering  the  fact  that 
it  came  from  a  Democratic  convention,  it  was  an  immense  for- 
ward stride.  No  other  State  Convention  took  so  strong  ground. 
Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Indiana,  and  Iowa  Democrats  ignored  the 
subject  of  slavery ;  and  the  Illinois  Convention,  dominated  by 
members  from  "  Egypt,"  condemned  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
movement  "as  an  intemperate  discussion  and  an  unnecessary 
agitation  of  the  subject."  1 

Several  of  these  conventions,  including  that  of  Ohio,  went 
so  far  as  explicitly  to  recommend  Cass  for  the  Presidency;  but 
in  many  localities  distrust  of  him  could  be  neither  placated 
by  anti-slavery  resolutions  nor  frowned  down  by  State  Conven- 
tions anxious  above  all  things  for  harmony.  Even  in  Mich- 
igan protests  were  heard.  "  How  General  Cass  reconciles  his 
views  with  those  expressed  by  the  Democrats  of  the  State 
which  he  has  the  honor  to  represent  we  do  not  know,"  said  the 
Pontiac  Jacksonian.  "  Michigan  is  fully  committed  to  the  Wil- 
mot Proviso.  Our  last  legislature,  almost  wholly  Democratic, 
passed  a  resolution  in  favor."2  When  in  February,  sixty-six 
Democratic  members  of  the  legislature  signed  a  paper  recom- 
mending Cass  as  their  choice  for  the  Presidency,  five  refused  to 
sign,  including  F.  J.  Littlejohn,  a  favorite  Democratic  stump- 
speaker.  This  was  the  first  token  of  a  Democratic  discontent 
which  was  destined  to  trouble  Cass  thereafter.3 

The  region  where  Democratic  anti-slavery  views  were  strongest 
was  the  northeastern  counties  of  Illinois  and  the  contiguous 
southeastern  counties  of  Wisconsin.  Here,  in  addition  to 
anti-slavery  objections,  Cass's  probable  nomination  met  with 
hostility  on  the  ground  of  his  suspected  disapproval  of  internal 
improvements.  This  last  feature  deserves  more  attention  than 
can  here  be  given,  for  the  question  of  river  and  harbor  im- 
provement was  one  peculiarly  interesting  to  the  Northwest.  In 
the  years  preceding  1848  nearly  every  Northwestern  State 
legislature  had  demanded  national  aid  to  interstate  commerce, 
and  nothing  had  so  disgusted  Western  business  men  as  Polk's 

1  Chicago  Journal,  May  I,  1848. 

2  Quoted  in  Detroit  Advertiser^  Jan.  19,  1848. 
«  Ibid.,  Feb.  9,  1848. 


DEMOCRATIC  DISLIKE   OF  CASS.  12$ 

veto.  A  great  Northwestern  River  and  Harbor  Convention  had 
been  held  in  Chicago  on  July  5,  1847,  to  which  Cass,  as  a  repre- 
sentative Northwestern  politician,  was  invited.  Faced  by  the 
dilemma  of  either  failing  to  support  Polk  or  displeasing  a 
strong  popular  sentiment,  he  took  the  futile  course  of  writing  a 
note,  saying,  without  a  word  of  comment  favorable  or  other- 
wise, that  circumstances  would  prevent  his  attendance.  This 
attempt  at  dodging  was  of  course  a  lamentable  failure,  and  pro- 
duced unmeasured  ridicule.  Northwestern  Democrats  lost  con- 
fidence in  him  at  once ;  for  their  pockets  were  so  vitally  affected 
by  bars  in  harbors  and  snags  in  rivers  that  with  them  Folk's 
interpretation  of  the  party  creed  had  little  weight. 

The  dozen  or  more  anti-slavery  counties  in  Illinois  and  Wis- 
consin were  equally  urgent  for  internal  improvements,  and  they 
now  protested  vigorously  against  Cass.  When  it  was  reported 
that  the  Wisconsin  delegates  to  the  Democratic  convention 
were  pledged  to  Cass,  the  Soitthport  Telegraph  remarked:  "If 
such  be  the  case,  Wisconsin  will  be  most  outrageously  misrepre- 
sented, for  we  firmly  believe  that  of  the  Democratic  voters  five 
out  of  six  would  prefer  some  other  man  to  Cass.  ...  If  his 
Southern  subservience  were  not  in  itself  sufficient  to  condemn 
him  in  their  eyes,  his  standing  in  relation  to  national  works  of 
improvement  .  .  .  would  most  effectually  do  it."  *  In  northern 
Illinois  four  or  more  Democratic  county  conventions  passed 
resolutions  demanding  the  Wilmot  Proviso ;  2  and  the  Chicago 
"  Barnburners,"  —  as  they  called  themselves,  in  imitation  of 
the  New  York  Free  Soil  Democrats,  —  not  satisfied  with  ex- 
pressing their  own  opinions,  proceeded  to  suppress  utterances 
of  opposing  views.  At  a  meeting  called  "  to  sustain  the 
administration  and  blink  the  Wilmot  Proviso,"  a  number  of 
the  partisans  of  "  Long  John  Wentworth  "  moved  anti-slavery 
resolutions.  The  chairman,  amid  a  violent  clamor,  declared 
the  meeting  adjourned ;  but  the  anti-slavery  men,  led  by 
Thomas  Hoyne  and  I.  N.  Arnold,  called  a  new  meeting  on 
the  spot,  and  after  a  bitter  struggle  carried  the  resolution: 
"  That  while  the  Democracy  of  Chicago  .  .  .  will  adhere  to 

1  Quoted  in  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  May  I,  1848. 

2  National  Era,  May  4,  1848. 


124  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

the  compromises  of  the  Constitution  .  .  .  they  declare  their  un- 
compromising determination  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery 
into  territory  now  free  which  may  be  acquired  by  any  action  of 
the  Federal  Government."  1 

On  May  22  the  Democratic  National  Convention  nominated 
Lewis  Cass  upon  a  platform  framed  to  suit  the  South ;  and  from 
all  over  the  free  States  broke  out  at  once  cries  of  rage  and  dis- 
appointment. In  New  York  the  revolt  of  the  Barnburners  at 
once  shattered  the  Democratic  party  from  top  to  bottom  ;  and 
though  this  bolt  was  due  as  much  to  factional  hatred  of  Cass 
as  to  anti-slavery  feeling,  the  action  found  a  response  in  every 
Northwestern  State.  Only  in  Illinois  and  Wisconsin,  however, 
did  revolt  break  forth  at  once  ;  in  the  other  States  Democrats 
sulked  and  nursed  their  wrath,  waiting  for  events.  In  Wiscon- 
sin the  Racine  Advocate  said :  "  We  do  not  put  the  names  of 
Lewis  Cass  and  W.  O.  Butler  at  the  head  of  our  columns,  be- 
cause we  can  in  no  event  cordially  support  the  nomination  of 
the  Baltimore  Convention,  and  very  probably  may  not  be  able 
to  support  it  at  all.  .  .  .  The  course  of  General  Cass  on  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  was  one  that  ought  to  have  the  reprobation  of 
men  of  all  parties.  .  .  .  We  honestly  hope  another  nomination 
may  be  made  by  Democrats."  2  The  Southport  Telegraph  said : 
"  We  do  not  place  at  the  head  of  our  columns  the  name  of 
Lewis  Cass  or  W.  O.  Butler.  .  .  .  We  do  not  consider  them, 
or  at  least  the  Presidential  nominee,  as  a  fit  representative 
of  Democratic  principles.  .  .  .  There  is  not  a  Democratic 
editor  in  the  state,  however  he  may  try  to  deceive  himself 
and  his  readers,  but  thinks  a  more  unfortunate  and  objection- 
able nomination  than  that  of  Lewis  Cass  could  not  be  made."  3 
Shortly  after  this  a  call  appeared  for  a  meeting  of  the  "  Demo- 
crats of  Racine  and  vicinity  opposed  to  the  election  of  Lewis 
Cass " ;  4  and  the  first  straight  bolt  in  the  Northwest  had 
begun. 

In  Illinois,  John  Wentworth's  paper,  the  Chicago  Democrat,  re- 
fused, in  spite  of  the  taunts  of  the  Whig  Chicago  Journal,  to 

1  National  Era,  April  6,  1848. 

2  Quoted  in  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  June  I,  1848. 

8  Quoted  ibid.,  June  5,  1848.  4  Ibid.,  June  15,  1848. 


REVOLT  OF  THE  BARNBURNERS.  12$ 

place  Cass's  name  at  the  head  of  its  columns.1  In  June  the 
Fourth  District  Congressional  Convention  met,  and  after  a 
stormy  time  refused  to  ratify  Cass's  nomination,  and  renomi- 
nated  Wentworth  for  Congress  without  a  platform.  The  Cass 
delegates,  forty  in  number,  then  bolted,  and  nominated  J.  B. 
Thomas.  An  Illinois  Presidential  elector  of  1844  wrote: 
"  There  are  thousands  of  voters  .  .  .  who  will  never  vote  for 
Cass.  .  .  .  You  can  scarcely  conceive  the  enthusiasm  for  the 
AVilmot  Proviso."  2 

By  the  end  of  June  the  Democratic  opposition  to  Cass,  led  by 
the  New  York  Barnburners,  had  taken  definite  form  in  a  con-  > 
vention  at  Utica,  which  with  tremendous  enthusiasm  nominated 
Martin  Van  Buren  for  the  Presidency.  This  meeting  had  a 
semi-national  character ;  for  delegates  were  present  from  Massa- 
chusetts and  Connecticut,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin,  those 
from  the  last-named  State  having  been  regularly  chosen  by  an 
anti-Cass  Democratic  meeting  at  Racine.  J.  W.  Taylor,  of  Ohio, 
made  a  speech  promising  aid  to  the  Barnburners,  and  two  in- 
teresting telegrams  were  read.  One  from  Lafayette,  Indiana, 
declared :  "  We  have  our  eyes  upon  you.  Desire  prompt 
action.  Will  throw  heavy  vote.  An  enthusiastic  mass  meeting. 
Whigs  and  Democrats  in  Tippecanoe  have  spoken  in  unmistake- 
able  terms."  The  other,  signed  by  Woodworth,  the  mayor  of 
Chicago,  T.  Hoyne,  I.  N.  Arnold,  "  and  one  hundred  others," 
said :  "  Please  to  make  known  to  the  Convention  that  Northern 
Illinois  is  ready  to  fraternize  with  New  York.  The  undersigned 
Democrats,  with  thousands  of  others,  are  ready  to  second  any 
national  movement  in  favor  of  Free  Territory  and  would  suggest 
a  National  Mass  Convention."3 

When  the  news  of  the  nomination  went  over  the  country, 
coupled  with  a  call  for  a  national  convention  at  Buffalo,  North- 
western Democrats  fairly  broke  loose,  and  ratification  meetings 
were  held  in  every  State.  Wisconsin  and  Illinois,  as  usual,  felt 
the  greatest  excitement.  In  Wisconsin,  the  Soutkport  Telegraph 

1  Chicago  Journal,  June  3,  1848. 

2  National  Era,  June  22,  1848. 

8  The  Great  Issue,  New  York,  1848,  107,  seq.,  describes  the  Utica 
Convention. 


126  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

and  Racine  Advocate  ran  up  the  Van  Buren  flag;  the  Rock 
County  Democrat  remarked :  "  In  this  vicinity  truth  compels  us 
to  say  that  the  Utica  nomination  is  well  received  by  a  large 
portion  of  the  Democracy.  ...  If  there  were  any  prospect  of 
a  general  uprising,  if  the  question  of  free  territory  could  be 
brought  to  a  direct  issue,  ...  we  would  cheerfully  take  hold 
and  help."1 

In  Illinois,  the  protesting  Chicago  Democrats  rivalled  their 
New  York  friends  in  noisy  excitement.  "  Had  a  bombshell  fallen 
into  our  quiet  city  yesterday,"  said  the  Whig  Chicago  Journal, 
"  it  could  not  have  created  more  consternation.  .  .  .  Our 
Barnburning  friends  fairly  swarmed  and  were  in  ecstasies.  .  .  . 
Knots  of  men  on  every  corner  were  busy  canvassing  the  merits 
of  the  nominees.  .  .  .  They  evidently  gloated  over  the  prospect 
of  the  defeat  of  Cass." 2  A  call  very  soon  appeared,  signed  by 
several  hundred  of  the  most  influential  Democrats,  for  a  meet- 
ing in  favor  of  Free  Soil  and  Van  Buren.  On  July  4  the 
meeting  convened,  "  numerous  and  enthusiastic,"  and  after 
making  fiery  speeches  for  Van  Buren,  and  scoring  Cass,  re- 
solved "  That  General  Cass  having  .  .  .  avowed  the  opinion 
that  Congress  has  no  Constitutional  power  to  prohibit  slavery, 
...  no  man  can  support  him  without  an  utter  abandonment  of 
the  great  principle  of  Free  Soil."  3 

Meanwhile,  Whig  bolters  had  been  keeping  pace,  step  by 
step,  with  the  Free  Soil  Democrats  in  the  Northwest.  Whig 
State  Conventions  in  Ohio  and  Michigan  passed  resolutions  in 
favor  of  restricting  slavery;  but  in  Indiana,  Illinois,  Wisconsin, 
and  Iowa  the  subject  was  not  mentioned.  By  the  beginning  of 
1848  the  Taylor  "  boom"  was  so  powerful  that  nothing  seemed 
able  to  stand  before  it,  and  anxious  Whigs  could  only  protest 
unavailingly  or  watch  in  gloomy  silence.  What  made  their 
situation  the  more  trying  was  the  fact  that  the  papers  which 
supported  Taylor  were  the  loudest  in  asserting  anti-slavery  prin- 
ciples. "  The  Whig  party,  North,  is  the  true  anti-slavery  party 
of  the  Republic !  "  cried  the  Detroit  Advertiser. 4  In  Illinois, 

1  Quoted  in  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  July  4,  1848. 

2  June  24,  1848.  8  National  Era,  July  20,  1848. 
4  Feb.  17,  1848. 


WHIG  DISTRUST  OF  TAYLOR.  1 27 

the  Cook  County  Whig  Convention  resolved  that  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  "  is  now  and  ever  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Whigs 
of  the  free  States,"  and  that  "  the  Whig  party  has  ever  been  the 
firm,  steady,  and  unchanging  friend  of  harbor  and  river  appro- 
priations." l  The  Milwaukee  Sentinel  claimed :  "  It  is  known  to 
the  whole  Union  that  the  Whigs  of  all  the  free  States  are  .  .  . 
uncompromisingly  opposed  to  any  further  extension  of  slav- 
ery " ;  2  and  it  invoked  the  people  of  Wisconsin  to  vote  the 
Whig  ticket  in  the  spring  election  in  order  to  "  bear  testimony, 
in  favor  of  Free  Soil  and  against  the  further  extension  of  slave 
territory."  3 

With  their  party  papers  making  such  vigorous  assertions, 
Whigs  in  most  of  the  Northwestern  States  refrained  from  open 
complaint;  but  on  the  Western  Reserve  such  circumstances 
had  no  weight.  By  the  beginning  of  1848  the  anti-slavery 
Whigs  of  that  region  were  preparing  for  the  worst.  The  State 
Whig  Committee  made  some  efforts  to  keep  them  quiet  by  ad- 
vocating McLean  or  Corwin  as  a  candidate ;  but  nobody  was 
deceived.  Every  one  knew  that  Taylor's  nomination  was 
inevitable;  yet,  with  their  eyes  open,  Whig  conventions  in 
Trumbull,  Lorain,  Warren,  Stark,  Cuyahoga,  Belmont,  Lake, 
Geauga,  Green,  Clinton,  Ashtabula,  and  other  counties  resolved 
"  That  we  will  support  no  man  for  the  office  of  President  in 
1848  who  is  not  a  true  friend  and  an  earnest  advocate  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1 787."*  The  True  Democrat  began  to  consider 
the  possible  necessity  of  bolting.  "  Can  party  allegiance,"  it 
asked,  "  relieve  a  man  from  the  discharge  of  moral  obligations? 
Suppose  the  Whigs  nominate  General  Taylor  for  President, 
must  we  as  Whigs  vote  for  him?  Can  party  obligations  bind 
us  to  become  accessory  to  the  extension  of  slavery?  "  6 

As  the  spring  approached,  the  excitement  of  Ohio  anti-slavery 
Whigs  increased.  A  "  Clay  "  meeting  in  Cincinnati,  taken  pos- 
session of  by  anti-slavery  men,  passed  a  resolution  not  to 
support  any  man  "  not  avowedly  and  heartily  in  favor  of  the 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  all  the  Territories."  6  Evidently  times 

1  Chicago  Journal,  Apfril  3,  1848.  2  April  28,  1848. 

8  May  2,  1848.  4  True  Democrat,  Jan.  4,  1848. 

6  Ibid.,  Jan.  10,  1848.  8  Ibid.,  April  n,  1848. 


128  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

had  changed  since  1844,  if  such  sentiments  were  deemed  appro- 
priate at  a  "Clay"  meeting.  In  Cincinnati,  early  in  March, 
there  was  circulated  among  Whigs  a  paper  receiving  a  large 
number  of  signatures,  declaring:  "We,  the  undersigned,  hav- 
ing acted  with  the  great  Whig  party  of  the  United  States,  .  .  . 
while  we  would  not  meddle  with  slavery  where  it  now  exists,  yet 
deem  it  our  duty  to  use  all  lawful  and  peaceable  means  to  stop 
its  progress,  .  .  .  and  we  do  most  solemnly  pledge  ourselves  to 
vote  for  no  man  .  .  .  who  is  not  known  to  be,  or  who  will  not 
most  positively  declare  himself,  opposed  to  the  introduction  of 
slavery  into  any  of  the  territory  now  owned  by  these  United 
States  or  into  any  territory  that  may  be  acquired  by  purchase 
or  otherwise."  1 

When,  on  the  loth  of  June,  the  Whig  National  Convention 
nominated  Zachary  Taylor  without  any  platform  and  howled 
down  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  the  Western  Reserve  Whigs  rose  as 
one  man  to  repudiate  him.  "As  we  anticipated,"  said  the  True 
Democrat,  "  the  Whigs  have  nominated  Zach  Taylor  for  presi- 
dent !  And  this  is  the  cup  offered  by  slave-holders  for  us  to 
drink.  We  loathe  the  sight.  We  will  neither  touch,  taste  nor 
handle  the  unclean  thing.  We  ask  the  Whigs  of  Cuyahoga 
County  to  live  up  to  the  pledge  they  have  made."  >2  They  did 
so.  Within  a  week  after  Taylor's  nomination,  in  every  county 
of  the  Western  Reserve  a  people's  meeting,  without  regard 
to  party,  had  repudiated  Taylor  and  demanded  a  national 
Free  Soil  candidate.  Eight  Whig  newspapers  jpolted  without 
hesitation.3  Outside  of  Ohio,  open  bolting  was  not  common; 
although  the  Lafayette  Journal  of  Indiana  said:  "The  nomina- 
tion of  Gen.  Taylor  is  a  disgrace  to  the  Convention  and  an 
insult  to  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  the  American  people. 
The  Whig  party  is  basely  betrayed  —  aye,  sold  to  the  Southern 
slave-holder.  For  ourselves  we  are  against  the  nomination 
might  and  main,  heart  and  soul."  4 

1  Cincinnati  Gazette,  May  1, 1848.  2  June  10,  1848. 

8  True  Democrat,  June  30,  1848  ;  A.  G.  Riddle,  Rise  of  the  Anti-Slavery 
Sentiment  on  the  Western  Reserve,  in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  VI., 
145-156. 

4  Quoted  in  American  Freeman,  July  18,  1848. 


BOLT  OF  THE  FREE  SOIL    WHIGS.  129 

When  so  many  Whigs  and  Democrats  were  filled  with  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  and  with  disgust  at  their  respective  party 
nominations,  common  action  was  inevitable.  As  early  as  the 
summer  of  1847,  non-partisan  Wilmot  Proviso  meetings  were 
held  in  Ohio  on  the  Reserve  and  in  Cincinnati ; l  these  became 
more  common  in  1848;  and  as  the  spring  advanced  and  every 
day  made  the  nomination  of  Taylor  and  Cass  more  certain, 
they  grew  larger  and  more  emphatic.  Finally,  May  20,  a  call 
appeared  in  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  signed  by  three  thousand 
voters  of  thirty  counties,  for  a  great  State  Mass  Free  Territory 
Convention  to  express  the  sentiment  of  the  people  on  the  exten- 
sion of  slavery.  "We  ask  no  man  to  leave  his  party,"  it  said, 
"  or  surrender  his  party  views.  .  .  .  Let  all  come  who  prefer 
free  territory  to  slave  territory  and  are  resolved  to  act  and  vote 
accordingly.  If  candidates  have  been  already  nominated  who 
represent  our  principles,  let  us  approve  them ;  if  not,  let  us  our- 
selves form  a  ticket  we  can  support."  2  This  call  was  written 
by  Chase,  whose  position  in  this  matter  will  be  explained 
below. 

After  Taylor  was  nominated  at  Philadelphia,  a  meeting  of  f  , 
dissatisfied  Whigs  was  held  in  a  committee  room,  among 
whom  were  Vaughn,  Campbell,  Galloway,  and  two  others,  be- 
sides Stanley  Mathews,  the  Liberty  party  editor  of  the  Cincin- 
nati Herald.  After  much  discussion,  it  was  resolved  to  hold  a 
Free  Soil  convention  at  Buffalo ;  and  in  order  to  get  an 
impressive  non-partisan  call,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  ask  the 
Ohio  Free  Territory  Convention  to  issue  it.3  On  June  21  the 
People's  Convention  met  at  Columbus,  with  one  thousand  dele- 
gates, including  prominent  Whigs,  Democrats,  and  Liberty 
men.  J.  C.  Vaughn  made  an  address  urging  the  calling  of  a 
national  convention  ;  and  the  meeting  so  resolved,  expressing 
the  opinion  that  it  should  be  held  in  August  at  Buffalo.  The 
presiding  officer  was  N.  Sawyer,  of  Cincinnati,  a  leading 
Democrat,  and  the  other  officers  were  nearly  all  Whigs  and 
Democrats.  A  letter  from  Giddings  was  read  by  E.  S.  Hamlin, 

1  National  Era,  July  29,  1847  ;  National  Press  and  Herald,  Oct.  6,  1847. 

2  National  Era,  May  25,  1848;  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  oj  Chase,  316. 
8  Henry  Wilson,  Slave  Power,  II.,  142. 

9 


130  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

committing  the  old  warrior  fully  to  the  movement  for  a  new 
party.  Liberty  men  also  were  very  much  in  evidence  ;  Chase, 
Lewis,  and  Birney  addressed  the  convention,  and  Harding,  of 
Indiana,  made  a  speech  claiming  that  his  State  would  poll  a 
large  vote  for  an  independent  candidate.  It  would  be  profitable 
to  repeat  the  admirable  series  of  resolutions,  written  of  course 
by  Chase ;  but  it  must  suffice  to  say  that  they  were  practically 
the  same  as  those  which  the  later  Free  Soil  platform  adopted  at 
Buffalo.  One  noteworthy  feature  was  the  wide  recognition  which 
they  gave  to  anti-slavery  action  by  mentioning  with  honor  men 
of  all  parties,  —  the  New  York  Barnburners,  McLean,  Gid- 
dings,  Palfrey,  Wilmot,  Henry  Wilson,  L.  D.  Campbell,  and 
John  P.  Hale.1 

With  the  call  for  a  national  convention  issued  simultaneously 
by  this  meeting  and  the  one  held  at  Utica,  the  movement  for 
independent  action  grew  with  intense  rapidity.  In  Ohio,  anti- 
slavery  men  rushed  into  non-partisan  conventions  in  nearly 
every  county  of  the  State,  until  in  July  the  National  Era  said : 
"  We  could  not  find  room  for  even  brief  notices  of  all  the  Free 
Soil  meetings  in  Ohio.  The  people  there  seem  to  be  cutting 
loose  en  masse  from  the  old  party  organizations."  2  Most  of 
these  conventions  passed  strong,  even  violent,  resolutions,  going 
far  beyond  the  mere  question  of  slavery  extension,  and  into  abo- 
lition ground ;  and  many  of  them  chose  delegates  to  Buffalo. 

The  other  States  did  not  lag  behind.  In  Indiana,  Free 
Soil  conventions  held  in  several  localities  passed  resolutions  and 
elected  delegates  to  Buffalo.  On  July  26  a  State  Convention 
was  held  at  Indianapolis,  over  which  the  mayor,  J.  B.  Seamans, 
presided.  Disregarding  the  objections  of  some  Taylor  men,  the 
convention  went  on  with  great  enthusiasm  to  pass  uncompro- 
mising resolutions,  elected  delegates  to  the  Buffalo  Convention, 
and  appointed  a  State  Central  Committee.3  Michigan  kept 
pace  with  Indiana.  In  June  and  July  meetings  without  distinc- 
tion of  party  were  held,  which  resolved  to  "  bury  all  political 

1  National  Era,  June  29-July  6,  1848;  True  Democrat,  June  27,  1848; 
J.  W.  Schuckers,  Life  of 'Chase, 84. 

2  July  20,  1848. 

8  National  Era,  Aug.  10,  1848  ;  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Aug.  16,  1848. 


NON-PARTISAN  FREE  SOIL   CONVENTIONS.         131 

animosities  and  strike  hands  for  the  one  great  cause  of  Free 
Soil  and  Free  Labor." 1  On  July  3  the  State  Convention 
appointed  a  Central  Committee,  made  arrangements  to  start  a 
Free  Soil  newspaper,  and  elected  delegates  to  Buffalo.  The 
Ann  Arbor  True  Democrat  and  the  Monroe  Advocate,  which  had 
at  first  followed  the  Baltimore  nomination,  pulled  down  the  Cass 
flag  and  turned  to  Van  Buren ;  and  leading  Democrats  followed 
their  example.  At  one  Free  Soil  convention,  two  former  presi- 
dents of  Cass  ratification  meetings  took  part.2 

In  Illinois,  the  excitement,  already  prodigious,  increased  ten- 
fold with  the  call  for  a  national  convention.  The  Democrats  of 
the  Fourth  District,  who  had  begun  their  bolt  on  a  party  basis, 
now  cordially  joined  the  "  People's  "  movement.  Early  in  July 
mass  meetings  in  Cook  and  Lake  counties,  without  respect  to 
party,  nominated  independent  Free  Soil  candidates,  the  first 
apparently  in  the  Northwest.3  Kendall,  Dupage,  and  other 
counties  followed,  electing  delegates  to  Buffalo  and  passing 
resounding  resolutions,  until  by  the  end  of  July  the  whole 
northern  section  of  the  State  seemed  to  be  throwing  itself  heart 
and  soul  into  the  third  party.  Wisconsin  Democrats  were  fully 
abreast  of  their  neighbors.  Non-partisan  meetings  flourished 
in  the  central  and  the  southeastern  counties,  and  on  July  26  a 
State  Free  Soil  Convention  met  at  Janesville,  attended  by  men 
of  all  shades  of  political  opinion,  although  most  of  the  officers 
were  Democrats.  The  meeting  adopted  resolutions,  and  after 
stirring  speeches  appointed  twenty-five  delegates  to  the  Buffalo 
Convention.4  Lastly,  signs  of  life  appeared  in  Iowa,  hitherto 
barren  territory.  Free  Soil  non-partisan  meetings  were  held  in 
the  southeastern  counties,  where  New  England  men  had  settled, 
and  measures  were  begun  for  a  State  organization.5  Thus  the 
months  of  June  and  July  passed  with  constantly  swelling  excite- 
ment, until,  on  August  9,  the  movement  reached  a  climax  in  the 
famous  Buffalo  Convention,  one  of  the  landmarks  of  anti-slavery 
action  in  the  United  States. 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  July  15,  1848.  2  Ibid.,  Aug.  10,  1848, 

8  Chicago  Journal,  July  17-31,  1848. 

4  American  Freeman,  Aug.  9,  1848;  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Aug.  I,  1848. 

5  National  Era,  Aug.  10,  1848. 


132  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

But  what  had  the  Liberty  party  been  doing  all  this  time,  while 
Vermont,  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Wiscon- 
sin seemed  rushing  bodily  into  anti-slavery  action?  By  July, 
1848,  events  had  gone  far  beyond  the  wildest  dreams  of  the 
Liberty  convention  of  1847;  but  they  had  gone  also  without 
any  regard  to  the  Liberty  party.  True,  the  nomination  of  I^Jale 
was  very  suitable  for  the  support  of  anti-slavery  Whigs  and 
Democrats,  but  in  1848  most  of  the  bolting  members  of  the  old 
parties  seemed  entirely  to  ignore  it.  Some  Whigs,  perhaps,  in 
Indiana  and  Ohio  looked  upon  the  Liberty  platform  with  favor ; 
but  no  Democratic  bolting  conventions  ever  considered  it  for  a 
moment.  By  July,  1 848,  Van  Buren  had  been  nominated  at  Utica. 
and  seemed  to  be  the  popular  choice  to  lead  the  new  movement. 
/  What  were  Liberty  men  to  do?  Were  they  to  continue  the 
''(  old  policy  of  separation,  or  should  they  join  the  new  movement? 
'  The  latter  alternative  was  rendered  difficult  by  the  fact  that 
they  had  a  party  ticket  already  in  nomination.  It  was  a  trying 
situation,  and  there  was  great  vacillation  throughout  the  coun- 
try. What  orthodox  Liberty  men  feared  most  was  some  devia- 
tion from  the  line,  of  strict  abolitionist  consistency.  On  July 
6,  the  executive  committee  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  issued  a  warning  address,  urging  at  great  length 
that  "  non-extension  is  not  abolitionism  although  included  in  it, 
and  it  will  be  time  to  consider  overtures  of  coalition  from  fellow- 
citizens  who  have  recently  awakened  to  see  the  disastrous  pol- 
icy of  slavery  extension  when  they  shall  have  embraced  the  great 
anti-slavery  principles  we  avow.  .  .  .  Neither  can  we  believe," 
it  added,  making  an  indirect  but  evident  allusion  to  Van  Buren, 
"  that  any  Liberty  party  man  will  cast  his  vote  for  a  politician 
who  has,  when  in  power,  proffered  his  aid  to  the  slaveocracy."  1 
This  address  was  signed  by  the  Tappans  of  New  York  and  by 
nine  others,  making  a  bare  majority  of  the  executive  commit- 
tee. The  names  of  William  Jay,  A.  Stewart,  Arnold  Buffum, 
and  others  were  conspicuously  absent.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
National  Era  threw  its  powerful  influence  in  the  direction  of 
conciliatory  measures  ;  and  between  these  two  positions  Liberty 
men  throughout  the  country  wavered. 

1  National  Era,  July  6,  1848. 


VACILLATIONS  OF  LIBERTY  MEN.  133 

In  Ohio,  matters  tended  from  the  first  in  the  direction  of 
co-operation  with  the  new  movement.  The  Cincinnati  Herald, 
which,  through  the  prestige  of  Birney  and  Bailey,  was  still  the 
leading  Liberty  paper  in  Ohio,  warmly  advocated  a  union  of  all 
anti-slavery  men,  and  condemned  the  American  and  Foreign 
Anti-Slavery  Society  manifesto  as  "  too  transcendental  for  our 
common  sense." *  Swayed  by  these  counsels,  the  party  ab- 
stained from  its  usual  midwinter  and  spring  activity.  Such 
conventions  as  were  held  discussed  and  resolved,  but  did  not 
nominate.  Chase,  Lewis,  King,  and  Wade  were  waiting.  In 
the  spring  Liberty  leaders  began  actively  to  co-operate  with  the 
Free  Soil  movement ;  and  several  of  them,  as  we  have  seen, 
were  prominent  at  the  Free  Territory  Convention.  Chase  in 
particular  welcomed  the  Barnburner  movement;  for  a  large 
part  of  the  Democratic  party,  whose  redemption  had  occupied 
his  thoughts  since  1845,  seemed  actually  on  the  point  of  be- 
coming anti-slavery.  He  threw  himself  with  great  vigor  into 
the  cause,  wrote  letters  right  and  left,  and  after  the  autumn 
of  1847  participated  in  non-partisan  meetings.  He  wrote  the 
call  for  the  People's  Convention  and  also  furnished  the  reso- 
lutions, although,  through  fear  of  seeming  too  prominent,  he 
caused  them  to  be  introduced  by  some  one  else,2  and  he 
induced  a  number  of  Cincinnati  men  of  all  parties  to  unite 
in  inviting  Hale  to  pay  them  a  visit. 

After  the  call  for  the  People's  Convention  had  been  issued, 
another  call  appeared,  signed  by  Chase,  Lewis,  Mathews,  and 
others,  summoning  a  Liberty  State  Convention  to  meet  at 
Columbus  on  June  21,  with  an  avowed  purpose  of  influencing 
the  action  of  the  Free  Territory  Convention.  "  Let  us  attend," 
ran  the  call,  "  and  share  the  deliberation  of  the  Independent 
People's  Convention.  If  possible,  let  us  agree  with  them  ;  if 
not,  let  us  nominate,  and  go  into  the  approaching  contest  with 
resolution  and  energy."3  This  convention  adopted  resolutions 
approving  the  Buffalo  Convention,  but  declaring  that  the  party 
would  support  no  man  who  would  not  adopt  Liberty  principles. 

1  Cincinnati  Herald,  July  19,  1848. 

2  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  316. 
•     8  National  Era.  May  4,  1848. 


134  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

A  State  Committee  was  appointed,  and  the  convention 
adjourned.  This  was  the  last  official  meeting  of  the  Liberty 
party  in  Ohio.1  Among  the  most  significant  illustrations  of  the 
recent  change  of  mind  among  Ohio  Liberty  men  was  a  resolu- 
tion passed  at  a  convention  for  Lake  and  Ashtabula  counties. 
A  favorite  taunt  of  the  Western  Reserve  Liberty  men  against 
Giddings  had  been  that  the  local  Whig  party  kept  renominating 
him  only  through  fear  of  losing  abolition  votes  ;  now  that  he  was 
repudiating  Taylor,  the  same  men  who  had  fought  him  bitterly 
for  six  years  resolved  that  "  his  re-election  does  not  now  depend 
on  our  opposition,  but  may  consist  with  our  co-operation."2 

Indiana  followed  more  slowly  in  the  same  course.  On  June 
12,  a  State  Liberty  Convention  passed  resolutions  in  favor  of 
Hale  and  King,  demanding  the  Wilmot  Proviso  and  condemn- 
ing the  old  parties;  and  it  nominated  an  electoral  ticket;  but  in 
July,  with  the  call  for  a  national  convention,  abolitionists  altered 
their  course  and  began  to  join  the  Free  Soil  movement.  When 
the  State  Free  Territory  Convention  met  on  July  26,  S.  S.  Hard- 
ing and  S.  C.  Stevens,  the  two  leaders  of  the  Indiana  Liberty 
party,  both  wrote  approving  letters. 

The  Michigan  Liberty  party  met  in  convention  on  February 
4,  1848,  and  nominated  an  electoral  ticket.  A  last  echo  of  the 
struggle  in  the  Liberty  National  Convention  of  1847  occurred, 
when  this  body  found  itself  obliged  to  reject  a  proposition  to 
endorse  the  platform  of  the  Liberty  League.3  Resolutions 
were  introduced  at  this  meeting  inviting  Whigs  and  Democrats 
to  join  the  Liberty  party  in  supporting  Hale,  and  proposing  an 
alliance  with  the  Whigs  in  order  to  carry  the  State  against 
Cass.  After  some  debate  they  were  withdrawn ;  but  a  little 
later  a  Liberty  man,  in  a  letter  to  the  Detroit  Advertiser,  re- 
newed the  discussion,  and  suggested  a  Whig  and  Liberty 
"  deal,"  the  Liberty  party  having  the  electors,  the  Whigs  taking 
Congressmen  and  the  State  ticket.4  These  suggestions  came 
to  nothing;  but,  as  will  be  seen,  there  was  something  in  them 

1  National  Era,  July  6,  1848. 

2  True  Democrat,  May  31,  1848. 
8  National  Era,  Feb.  24,  1848. 

4  Detroit  Advertiser,  Feb.  17,  1848. 


LIBERTY  LEADERS  DECIDE    TO   COALESCE.         135 

almost  prophetic  of  later  Michigan  politics.  By  July,  Michigan 
Liberty  men  were  joining  heartily  with  the  Free  Soil  organiza- 
tions. 

The  Illinois  Liberty  party  in  this  year  stood  in  a  somewhat 
peculiar  position.  On  February  9  and  10,  at  a  State  Conven- 
tion, the  party,  recovering  with  its  usual  elasticity  from  the  in- 
action of  1847,  prepared  for  a  vigorous  canvass.  Later  in  the 
year  a  convention  for  the  Fourth  Congressional  District  renomi- 
nated  Lovejoy,  who  took  the  stump  at  once,  trying,  amid  the 
turmoil  and  excitement  of  the  spring  and  summer  months,  to 
hold  the  local  third  party  together.  On  July  4,  at  a  time  when 
Liberty  men  in  Ohio  and  Indiana  were  in  the  thick  of  the  Free 
Soil  movement,  Illinois  abolitionists  held  a  State  Convention  at 
Hennepin,  and  nominated  Dr.  Dyer  and  H.  H.  Snow  for  Gover- 
nor and  Lieutenant-Governor  respectively.  When  the  election 
took  place,  it  was  found  that  the  Liberty  vote  had  fallen  off; 
but,  considering  the  distraction  of  the  time,  its  showing  was 
creditable:  Democratic  —  French,  67,453;  Liberty  —  Dyer, 
4,748.  In  the  Fourth  District,  Lovejoy  made  a  fair  showing,  but 
did  not  urge  his  cause  with  the  vehemence  which  he  had  shown 
two  years  before.  His  sympathies  were  always  with  practical 
measures,  and  he  saw  that  the  time  had  come  to  abandon  sep- 
arate action.1 

In  Wisconsin  a  State  election  occurred  to  retard  the  union  of 
Liberty  and  Free  Soil  men.  The  adoption  of  a  State  constitu- 
tion having  necessitated  an  election  in  the  spring,  the  Wisconsin 
Liberty  party  met  in  convention  on  April  19  and  nominated  a 
full  ticket.  It  was  in  this  frontier  State,  it  will  be  remembered, 
that  John  P.  Hale's  nomination  had  met  with  the  greatest  con- 
demnation, and  that  the  tendency  of  the  local  party  had  been 
toward  Gerrit  Smith  and  the  Liberty  League.  This  convention 
elected  delegates  to  a  convention  called  by  the  Liberty  League 

1  Chicago  Journal,  Aug.  4,  1848.  The  Liberty  vote  in  this  Congres- 
sional election  was  as  follows  :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Liberty. 

Fourth  District      .     .   11,857  8,312  3,130 

Sixth  District   .     .     .     9,302  10,325  666 

Seventh  District    .     .     7,201  7>°95  166 


136  THIRD-PARTY  COMBINATION. 

to  meet  at  Buffalo  in  June ;  but  it  refused  to  adopt  Goodell's 
favorite  doctrine,  that  the  Liberty  party  ought  to  be  a  national 
reform  organization.  It  did  declare,  however,  that  the  United 
States  Constitution  was  an  anti-slavery  document,  and  it  laid  on 
the  table  resolutions  to  support  Hale.  When  a  resolution  was 
introduced  offering  to  unite  with  any  or  all  parties  who  would 
pledge  themselves  to  support  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  it  was  unani- 
mously rejected.1  On  this  rigid  and  narrow  basis  the  Wiscon- 
sin Liberty  party  made  an  active  campaign,  and  succeeded,  in 
May,  1848,  in  increasing  its  vote  as  follows:  Democratic  — 
Dewey,  17,238;  Whig  —  Tweedy,  14,049;  Liberty  —  Durkee, 

IJ34- 

After  the  local  election  of  1848,  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  the  Liberty  party  of  Wisconsin  to  the  Free  Soil  move- 
ment absorbed  all  the  interest  of  the  party.  When,  in  June,  the 
purpose  of  the  Ohio  Liberty  men  to  join  the  People's  Conven- 
tion became  apparent,  the  American  Freeman  in  great  disgust 
said:  "  In  doing  this  they  have  left  the  platform  of  the  Liberty 
party.  .  .  .  That  was  established  not  to  enact  the  Wilmot  Pro- 
viso, but  to  abolish  slavery  throughout  the  Union.  .  .  .  We 
regard  this  movement  as  an  abandonment  of  the  Liberty  party. 
And  so  Wilmot  Provisoism  and  not  abolitionism  is  henceforth 
to  be  the  creed  of  the  Liberty  party !  We  wash  our  hands  of 
all  participation  in  this  business  !  "  2  But  by  the  end  of  June,  the 
direction  of  the  current  had  become  so  obvious  that  the  more 
practical  Wisconsin  abolitionists  realized  that  they  must  do  as 
their  brethren  were  doing,  or  be  stranded.  Therefore  Charles 
Durkee  and  others  called  a  State  Convention,  which  met  at 
Southport,  and  after  prolonged  debate  adopted  resolutions 
favoring  the  Buffalo  Convention,  with  the  proviso  that  "the 
Liberty  party  of  Wisconsin  can  sustain  no  candidates  except 
those  who  are  not  only  pledged  against  the  extension  of  slavery, 
but  are  also  committed  to  the  policy  of  abolishing  it."  3  It  then 
appointed  thirteen  delegates  to  Buffalo ;  and  thus  the  Liberty 
party  of  Wisconsin  finally  placed  itself  in  line  with  that  of  the 
other  States. 

1  American  Freeman,  April  26,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  June  7,  1848.  8  Ibid.,  July  26,  1848. 


LIBERTY  PARTY  IN  STATE  ELECTIONS.  137 

In  Iowa  the  State  Liberty  party  was  organized  in  December, 
1847,  and  in  1848,  at  Fort  Madison,  A.  St.  Clair  began  the  pub- 
lication of  an  anti-slavery  paper,  the  Iowa  Freeman.  In  the 
August  election  the  party  ran  separate  candidates  for  the 
legislature  in  Des  Moines  and  Van  Buren  counties,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  defeating  the  Whigs.1  Before  the  organization 
could  do  much,  however,  it  was  swallowed  up  by  the  Free 
Soil  revolt.2 

All  over  the  Northwest,  then,  Liberty  men,  as  well  as  anti- 
Taylor  Whigs  and  Wilmot  Proviso  Democrats,  were  anxiously 
awaiting  the  action  of  the  great  Buffalo  Free  Soil  Convention. 

1  Iowa  Free  Democrat,  Jan.  15,  1850. 

2  National  Era,  April  12,  1849. 


CHAPTER  X. 

CAMPAIGN   OF  THE   FREE   SOIL  PARTY. 
1848.  , 

DETAILED  study  of  the  Buffalo  Convention  as  a  national 
movement  belongs  to  the  general  history  of  the  country ;  for 
our  purposes,  it  will  be  enough  here  briefly  to  summarize 
its  action  and  to  give  some  account  of  the  part  played  in  it 
by  leading  Northwestern  men.  In  this  spirited  assemblage 
were  mingled  at  least  four  diverse  and  not  always  harmonious 
I  elements :  the  Liberty  men;  "Conscience"  Whigs'  Free  Soil 
Democrats ;  and,  distinct  from  the  preceding,  the  New  York 
Barnburners.  To  find  a  common  platform  and  candidate  for 
these  incongruous  groups  bade  fair  to  be  a  difficult  task.  In 
the  first  place^ould  the  Democrats  be  willing  to  adopt  any 
platform  more  radical  than  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  pure  and 
simple?^  It  did  not  seem  likely.  On  the  other  hand,  would 
Liberty  men  accept  anything  less  than  their  full  party  creed? 
And,  thirdly,  would  a  merely  anti-slavery  platform  of  any  kind 
satisfy  the  Western  men,  wno  thought  a  demand  for  internal 
improvements  indispensable?  In  the  matter  of  candidates  there 
was  certain  to  be  friction,  since  there  were  already  two  anti- 
slavery  nominations  in  the  field,  Hale  and  Van  Buren;  while 
the  "  Conscience  "  Whigs  had  their  own  favorites  in  Giddings, 
McLean,  and  C.  F.  Adams.  Of  all  the  men  named,  Hale  was 
personally  the  most  popular:  Liberty  men  were  zealous  for 
him  ;  Whigs  had  profited  once  by  an  alliance  with  him  in  New 
Hampshire  and  felt  kindly  disposed  ;  and  the  great  mass  of 
Democrats  outside  of  New  York  would  undoubtedly  have  been 


GROUPS  IN  THE  BUFFALO   CONVENTION.  139 

well  satisfied  with  his  candidacy.  Van  Buren,  however,  had  the 
prestige  attaching  to  an  ex-President,  and,  still  more  important, 
was  the  candidate  of  the  strongest  single  element  of  the  con- 
vention. The  New  York  Barnburners,  in  contrast  to  H ale's 
supporters,  were  a  united  body,  led  by  trained  politicians,  and 
were  masters  in  the  art  of  wire-pulling  and  convention  manage- 
ment, whereas  Liberty  men  and  Whigs  were  philanthropists 
rather  than  politicians. 

Had  the  tumultuous  mass  of  delegates  which,  on  August  9, 
invaded  Buffalo  voted  at  once  on  a  candidate,  Hale  would  have 
had  as  good  a  chance  as  Van  Buren ;  but  such  a  proceeding 
would  have  been  far  too  irregular  to  satisfy  the  leaders.  A 
Committee  of  Conferrees  was  arranged,  in  which  each  State  had 
a  number  of  delegates  equal  to  three  times  its  Congressional 
representation ;  and  by  this  body  of  some  five  hundred  men 
was  transacted  the  business  of  the  convention,  instead  of  by 
the  thousands  in  the  public  square.  While  fiery  orators  de- 
claimed and  the  crowd  shouted  itself  hoarse,  the  leading  mem- 
bers of  the  Liberty  and  Barnburner  factions  were  privately 
arranging  a  "  deal,"  which  practically  decided  the  outcome 
of  the  convention.  Three  Liberty  men,  Chase,  Leavitt,  and 
Stanton,  had  become  convinced  that  the  Barnburners  would 
have  Van  Buren  or  nobody,  but  that  they  were  not  very  par- 
ticular about  the  platform.  On  their  part,  they  cared  more  for 
a  plank  regarding  the  duty  of  separating  the  national  govern- 
ment from  slavery  than  they  did  for  the  nomination  of  Hale ; 
and  on  this  basis  they  determined  to  approach  the  Barnburners, 
offering  them  the  candidate  in  exchange  for  the  platform.  The 
Democratic  sympathies  of  Chase  inclined  him  powerfully  in 
favor  of  Van  Buren  as  against  McLean,  Giddings,  Adams,  or 
any  former  Whig ;  and  at  this  crisis  his  belief  that  the  real 
hope  of  the  country  for  anti-slavery  action  lay  in  the  Democratic 
party  seemed  to  be  justified  ;  hence  he  worked  from  the  outset 
in  complete  harmony  with  Preston  King  and  B.  F.  Butler,  of 
New  York.  At  some  informal  caucuses  a  provisional  platform 
was  adopted,  and  a  plan  of  operations  agreed  upon,  which,  on 
August  10,  was  carried  out  in  the  Grand  Committee.  A  Com- 
mittee on  Resolutions,  after  full  discussion,  reported  a  platform 


140  FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

drawn  up   by  Chase,  containing  planks   enough  to  equip  any 
party.     The  following  is  a  condensed  summary: — l 

Whereas  the  nominations  of  the  old  parties  are  unfit  ones, 
and  circumstances  demand  a  "  union  of  the  people  under  the 
banner  of  free  Democracy,"  therefore  be  it  resolved  that :  — 

I.  We  plant  ourselves  on  the  national  platform  of  freedom  in 

opposition  to  the  sectional  platform  of  slavery. 2.  Slavery 

depends  on  State  law  alone,  and  Congress  has  no  power  over 

slavery  in  the  States. 3.  The  early  policy  of  the  Union  was 

to  discourage  slavery. 4.  The  Federal  Government  has  no 

power  to  deprive  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law. 5.  Therefore  Congress  cannot  institute  slavery; 

6.  And  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  abol- 
ish sTavery  where  it  possesses  power; 7.  And  to  prohibit 

slavery  extension. 8.  "  No  more  slave  states,  no  slave  ter- 
ritory."  9.  We  condemn  the  recent  attempted  compromise 

in   Congress. 10.  We   demand    freedom   for    Oregon. 

II.  We  favor  cheap  postage,  retrenchment,  abolition  of  unneces- 
sary offices,  and   election    of  officers,   where   suitable,   by  the 

people. 12.  We  favor  internal  improvements. 13.  We 

demand  a  homestead  law. 14.  We  favor  the  early  payment 

of  the  public  debt  and  a  tariff  for   revenue. 15.    We  in- 
scribe on  our  banner  Free  Soil,  Free  Speech,  Free  Labor,  and 
Free  Men,  "  and  .  .  .  under  it  we  will  fight  on  and  ever  until  a 
triumphant  victory  shall  reward  our  exertions." 

The  sixth  resolution  satisfied  Liberty  claims'f  the  twelfth  and 
"thirteenth  attracted  Western  approval;  and  the  demands  for 
cheap  postage,  economy,  and  tariff  for  revenue,  together  with 
the  phraseology  flowing  naturally  from  Chase's  pen,  served  to 
give  the  platform  a  Democratic  air.  This  admirably  con- 
structed document  served  to  give  all  a  common  ground  at  the 
outset,  and  it  was  adopted  with  enthusiasm  by  the  convention. 
By  satisfying  Liberty  men  it  also  promoted  Van  Buren's  suc- 
cess, for,  with  a  platform  to  suit  them,  the  Liberty  party  cared, 
as  usual,  much  less  about  having  their  own  candidate. 

The  question  of  nomination  now  came  up ;   and  B.  F.  Butler 

1  The  full  text  of  the  platform  is  in  Stanwood,  Presidential  Elections, 
and  in  many  other  compendiums. 


LIBERTY   AND  BARNBURNER  BARGAIN.  141 

in  a  long  speech  presented  the  name  of  Van  Buren,  explaining 
his  candidate's  position  on  public  issues,  and  asserting,  in 
answer  to  questions,  that  the  same  President  who  in  1836  was 
pledged  to  veto  a  bill  for  abolition  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
now  stood  ready  to  sign  one.  Joshua  Leavitt,  on  his  part,  with 
the  sanction  of  Chase,  Lewis,  and  Stanton,  read  a  letter  from 
Hale  submitting  his  name  to  the  will  of  the  Convention. 
Giddings  was  also  nominated,  and  some  others ;  but  the  choice 
evidently  lay  between  the  Barnburner  and  Liberty  candidates. 

Another  name  which  might  have  roused  the  Convention  was 
withheld.  McLean  was  a  favorite  among  antislavery  Whigs; 
and  during  1847-48  Sumner,  as  a  representative  of  the  "Con- 
science" Whigs  of  Massachusetts,  had  corresponded  at  length 
with  Giddings  and  other  Western  men,  and  also  with  Chase, 
who  was  McLean's  son-in-law,  in  the  endeavor  to  make  out 
McLean's  position.  The  latter,  however,  was  cautious  in  his 
utterances  as  to  principles,  and  fairly  sphinx-like  whenever  the 
subject  of  a  nomination  was  broached,  and  Chase  exhausted  his 
ingenuity  without  coming  to  any  definite  conclusion.  At  the 
Buffalo  Convention,  Chase  was  obliged  to  take  the  responsi- 
bility of  managing  McLean's  case,  and,  under  the  impression 
that  he  was  not  desirous  of  a  nomination,  and  believing  that 
Van  Buren  was  the  man  for  the  hour,  he  prevented  the  name 
from  coming  before  the  Committee  of  Conferrees.1 

On  the  first  ballot,  Chase,  Leavitt,  and  numerous  Liberty  men 
voted  for  Van  Buren  instead  of  Hale,  the  vote  resulting  as  fol- 
lows: Martin  Van  Buren,  244;  John  P.  Hale,  183;  Joshua 
R.  Giddings,  23;  Charles  Francis  Adams,  13;  scattering,  4.2 
This  gave  Van  Buren  a  clear  majority  of  21  over  all;  but  since 
some  Hale  men  voted  for  him  in  order  to  make  a  nomination 
on  the  first  ballot,  and  since  the  Giddings  and  Adams  men 

1  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  Aug.  4,  1852. 

2  The  figures  as  above  given  are  impugned  in  an  indignant  letter  to  the 
National  Era,  September  14,  1848,  from  that  centre  of  radicalism,  Salem, 
Columbiana  County,  Ohio.     The  writer  says  that  there  were  only  sixty-nine 
Ohio  delegates  in  the  Grand  Committee,  and  that  the  vote  of  that  State  was 
not  37,  but  27,  for  Van  Buren.     If  this  be  the  case,  the  totals  were :  Van 
Buren,  234;  Hale,   183;  all  others,  40;  giving  Van  Buren  a  majority  of 
only  ii. 


142  FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

would  undoubtedly  have  preferred  Hale  to  Van  Buren,  it  seems 
clear  that  but  for  the  bargain  Hale  would  have  had  a  good 
fighting  chance.  When  the  vote  was  announced  and  the  wild 
applause  of  the  Barnburners  silenced,  Joshua  Leavitt,  an  original 
abolitionist  since  1832,  rose,  and  with  deep  emotion  moved  that 
the  nomination  be  made  unanimous.  Samuel  Lewis  seconded 
the  motion,  and  it  was  carried  amid  rapturous  excitement. 
Charles  Francis  Adams  was  then  quickly  nominated  for  Vice- 
President,  and  the  convention  adjourned  sine  die.  Most  of  its 
leaders,  except  possibly  the  far-sighted  Barnburners,  supposed 
that  they  had  founded  a  new  and  a  powerful  party,  the  "Free 
Democracy"  of  the  United  States. 

During  the  proceedings,  Western  men  had  been  very  promi- 
nent. Of  the  Democratic  contingent,  Brinckerhoff  and  Gillet 
of  Ohio,  and  Wilson  and  Miller  of  Michigan,  made  addresses; 
and  Chandler  and  Sawyer  of  Ohio,  Wright  of  Indiana, 
Christiancy  and  Wilson  of  Michigan,  Arnold  of  Illinois, 
Crocker  and  Wilson  of  Wisconsin,  and  Miller  of  Iowa,  served 
on  committees.  Among  the  smaller  contingent  of  Wilmot 
Proviso  Whigs,  Giddings  was  exceedingly  prominent.  His 
name  was  greeted  with  enthusiastic  applause  by  the  mass  meet- 
ing, and  he  was  repeatedly  called  on  to  speak.  Other  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  who  spoke  or  served  on  committees  were  Briggs, 
Vaughn,  and  Hamlin  of  Ohio,  and  Julian  and  Cravens  of 
Indiana.  More  important  than  any  of  the  foregoing  bolters 
from  the  two  great  parties  were  the  Western  Liberty  men. 
Judge  Stevens  of  Indiana  called  the  meeting  to  order,  and 
with  Harding  of  the  same  State,  Treadwell  of  Michigan,  Love- 
joy  of  Illinois,  and  Codding,  Booth,  and  Holton  of  Wisconsin, 
served  on  committees.  The  Ohio  galaxy,  however,  shone 
brighter  in  the  convention  than  any  other  body  of  men,  except, 
perhaps,  the  New  York  Barnburners  and  the  Massachusetts  Lib- 
erty delegates.  Lewis,  Smith,  and  Paine  addressed  the  conven- 
tion ;  and  Guthrie,  Townshend,  and  others  served  on  committees 
or  held  offices.  Chase  was  the  most  influential  person  in  the 
convention,  with  the  exception  of  Leavitt  and  Butler.  His 
agreement  with  Butler,  which  his  position  on  the  Committee  on 
Resolutions  enabled  him  to  carry  out,  his  own  literary  and 


WESTERN  MEN  IN  THE   CONVENTION.  143 

political  skill,  which  placed  the  convention  on  a  strong  plat- 
form, and  his  support  of  Van  Buren,  carrying  with  it  the 
votes  of  numerous  other  anxious  Liberty  men,  —  all  these  cir- 
cumstances contributed  essentially  to  the  outcome  of  the 
convention.1 

As  the  news  of  the  nomination  and  the  platform  travelled 
over  the  country,  it  aroused  various  feelings  among  anti-slavery 
men.  Free  Soil  Democrats  were  of  course  delighted  at  the 
choice  of  an  undeniably  Democratic  candidate  on  a  platform 
largely  Democratic ;  Liberty  men,  satisfied  with  the  platform  and 
impressed  by  the  large  part  taken  by  Leavitt,  Chase,  Stanton, 
and  Lewis,  in  the  proceedings  at  Buffalo,  put  aside,  for  the  time, 
unpleasant  memories  of  Van  Buren,  and  applauded  the  new 
party;  Hale  and  King  shortly  withdrew  from  the  Liberty  nom- 
ination of  October,  1847  ;  and  no  reason  remained  why  enthusi- 
astic abolitionists  should  hesitate  to  support  the  ticket.  As 
Edward  Smith  said  in  the  Buffalo  Convention,  "  The  Liberty 
party  had  secured  its  principles,  and  it  was  no  more  than  fair  to 
give  others  the  men." 

The  Free  Soil  ferment,  which  during  the  Convention  had 
calmed  down,  now  broke  out  again  with  redoubled  vigor. 
Ratification  meetings  were  held,  from  district  school  assemblies 
up  to  State  Conventions.  Especially  noteworthy  for  enthusiasm 
were  the  great  meetings  in  Cincinnati  on  August  25,  in  Chicago 
on  August  22,  and  in  Milwaukee  on  August  26 ;  in  all  of  which 
Democrats  and  Liberty  men  took  the  leading  part  Almost 
simultaneously  organization  and  campaign  work  began.  Chase 
and  Vaughn  stumped  the  Reserve,  and  Giddings  traversed  the 
southern  counties  of  Ohio.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  keep 
count  of  all  Free  Soil  meetings  on  the  Reserve.  Those  reported 
average  two  a  day  from  August  10  to  the  eve  of  the  election. 
By  the  first  of  September,  Brinckerhoff,  Lewis,  and  Root  were 
on  the  stump,  pushing  organization  ;  and  the  Free  Soil  Central 

1  For  details  of  the  Buffalo  Convention,  see  Oliver  Dyer,  Phonographic 
Report,  etc.,  published  in  pamphlet  form  in  1848,  and  Great  Senators,  93 
seq.;  also  National  Era,  Aug.  17,  24,  31,  1848.  The  inside  history  espe- 
cially of  the  dealings  between  the  Liberty  men  and  Barnburners  has  yet  to 
be  written. 


144  FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

Corrunittee,  to  stimulate  local  activity,  issued  an  address  written. 
by  E.  S.  Hamlin.  "  We  are  stronger  than  the  most  fearful  of 
our  adversaries  admit,"  it  said ;  "  we  are  stronger  than  our  own 
most  sanguine  estimate.  In  every  township,  in  every  county, 
let  some  trusty  Free  Soil  man  be  present  at  the  polls  with 
tickets  for  all.  Your  committee  call  upon' each  of  you  to  lend 
your  whole  aid  and  influence  to  carry  this  state."  l 

In  Indiana  a  State  Convention  met  on  August  30  at  Indian- 
apolis, and  after  lively  debate,  in  which  Liberty  men  took  a 
leading  part,  nominated  an  electoral  ticket  with  alternates,  the 
list  containing  the  leading  Liberty  men  and  the  prominent 
Whig  and  Democratic  Free  Soilers  of  the  State.  Local  meet- 
ings then  began  to  be  held,  but  not  with  such  vociferous 
enthusiasm  as  in  Ohio. 

The  Michigan  Free  Soilers  opened  a  lively  campaign  led  by 
Littlejohn,  Christiancy,  Clark,  and  other  former  Democrats, 
many  of  whom  found  a  motive  for  bolting  in  their  dislike  of 
Cass,  rather  than  in  their  antislavery  sympathies.  County  con- 
ventions began  organization  in  August,  and  on  September  20  a 
State  Convention  at  Ann  Arbor  nominated  a  full  set  of  electors.2 
In  this  list,  as  in  those  of  Ohio  and  Indiana,  former  members  of 
the  old  parties  were  given  the  lion's  share  of  positions,  Liberty 
men  being  willing  to  stay  in  the  background. 

More  ardent  and  more  numerous  than  Indiana  or  Michigan 
Free  Soilers,  the  Barnburners  of  Chicago  and  northern  Illinois 
rushed  with  enthusiasm  into  the  new  movement.  A  State  Con- 
vention at  Ottawa,  on  August  30,  in  which  sixty-six  counties 
were  represented,  nominated  with  great  harmony  an  electoral 
ticket  composed  mainly  of  former  Democrats,  and  claimed  for 
Illinois  a  Free  Soil  vote  of  40,000.  Following  this  beginning, 
local  meetings  kept  the  northern  counties  in  a  constant  up- 
heaval until  the  election. 

In  Wisconsin  it  seemed  for  a  time  as  if  the  whole  State  were 
rushing  into  the  Free  Soil  ranks.  A  mass  State  Convention, 
on  August  24,  at  Janesville,  chose  a  central  committee  and 
ratified  the  nomination  of  Van  Buren,  and  another  State  Con- 

1  Cincinnati  Globe  (Herald],  Sept.  I,  1848. 

2  Ann  Arbor  True  Democrat,  Sept.  28,  1848. 


LOCAL   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  NEW  PARTY.      145 

vention  at  Madison  on  September  27,  attended  by  delegates 
from  twelve  counties,  nominated  a  ticket  of  electors,  mostly 
Democrats.  Meanwhile  county  conventions  were  held  to  nom- 
inate independent  tickets  ;  and  Codding,  Durkee,  and  dozens  of 
others  were  on  the  stump.  An  enumeration  of  the  various 
meetings  in  Wisconsin  would  require  almost  as  much  space  as 
would  a  list  of  those  in  Ohio. 

In  Iowa  the  news  of  Van  Buren's  nomination  gave  strength 
to  the  incipient  Free  Soil  feeling,  which  in  August  led  to  local 
conventions,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  September  to  a  People's 
State  Convention  at  Iowa  City.  This  meeting  passed  the  usual 
resolutions,  and  nominated  a  set  of  electors  comprising  two 
Democrats,  one  Whig,  and  one  Liberty  man. 

By  September,  then,  it  seemed  to  be  shown  conclusively  that 
the  radical  anti-slavery  men  of  the  Northwest  were  prepared  to 
follow  the  Buffalo  movement ;  but,  beneath  all  this  noisy  activ- 
ity, there  lay  in  the  minds  of  the  more  sagacious  observers  the 
consciousness  that  the  Buffalo  Convention  had  not  united  all  the 
anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  North.  Orthodox  Liberty  men  felt 
Van  Buren's  nomination  as  a  slap  in  the  face :  the  man  who  in 
1836  had  announced  his  purpose  to  veto  any  bill  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  who  in  his  long  career  had 
never  by  word  or  deed  shown  the  slightest  sympathy  with  abo- 
litionists, was  little  better  suited  for  their  support  than  Henry 
Clay,  whom,  four  years  before,  they  had  repudiated  because 
they  could  never  vote  for  any  but  an  abolitionist.  Notwith- 
standing this  feeling,  when  the  nomination  of  Van  Buren  was 
made  upon  a  thoroughly  anti-slavery  platform,  most  of  them 
joined  the  new  party.  Here  and  there  a  few  zealous  abolition- 
ists declined  to  follow  Chase  and  Leavitt;  and  to  such  Gerrit 
Smith's  nomination  and  the  Liberty  League  offered  an  easy 
asylum.  The  wonder  is,  that,  trained  in  a  school  of  narrowness 
for  seven  years,  so  few  of  the  faithful  refused  to  follow  the  Buf- 
falo movement ;  and  even  they  preferred  to  sit  in  dejected  silence, 
while  their  less  sensitive  brethren  stifled  scruples  by  joining  the 
Democratic  Free  Soilers  in  vigorous  work  for  the  new  party. 

In  most  of  the  States  the  Liberty  organization  vanished  with 
the  news  of  the  Buffalo  Convention;  but  here  and  there  the 

10 


146 


FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 


name  survived  for  a  short  time.  In  Ohio  a  Liberty  convention 
in  Medina  County  made  a  local  nomination  and  stuck  to  its 
own  ticket  throughout  the  campaign,  although  a  subsequent 
Free  Soil  convention  ratified  the  Whig  candidate.  In  Mich- 
igan the  State  Liberty  party  formally  dissolved.  In  the  latter 
part  of  August,  a  State  Convention  at  Jackson  unanimously 
resolved  to  support  the  Buffalo  ticket,  thus  "  putting  an  end  to 
all  the  hopes  of  the  Cass  and  Taylor  factions  that  Liberty  men 
would  distract  the  Free  Soil  party  by  adhering  to  their  sepa- 
rate organization."1  The  Liberty  leaders,  with  very  few  ex- 
ceptions, were  the  first  to  join  the  new  party,  although  many 
of  them  did  it  with  wry  faces.  In  Indiana,  for  example,  at  the 
State  Free  Soil  Convention,  S.  S.  Harding  said  publicly  that 
"  it  was  with  some  difficulty  that  he  got  his  own  consent  to  go 
for  Van  Buren."2  In  Wisconsin,  on  the  contrary,  where  for 
some  months  the  local  party  had  seemed  on  the  point  of  join- 
ing the  Liberty  League,  a  sudden  revulsion  of  feeling  carried 
the  leaders  heart  and  soul  into  the  new  party ;  even  the  radical 
Booth,  of  the  Milwatikee  Freeman,  returned  from  Buffalo  a 
strong  supporter  of  Van  Buren,  though  a  week  earlier  he  had 
been  threatening  to  vote  for  "  the  Man  of  this  nation,  Gerrit 
Smith."3 

If  the  Liberty  men,  with  a  platform  drawn  by  one  of  their 
own  number,  found  it  hard  to  join  the  new  party,  the  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  of  the  country  found  it  still  harder.  Great  as 
was  the  abolitionists'  dislike  of  Van  Buren,  it  was  nothing  com- 
pared to  the  traditional  Whig  hatred,  dating  from  the  very  foun- 
dation of  their  party.  He  was  the  same  Van  Buren  in  1848 
that  he  had  always  been;  not  one  of  the  distinctly  "  Loco- 
foco"  doctrines  had  he  abjured,  except,  perhaps,  that  of  the 
unconstitutionally  of  internal  improvements.  He  had  not 
made  a  single  concession.  The  ex- Whig  editors  of  the  Indi- 
ana Free  Territory  Sentinel  could  find  no  heartier  praise  than 
to  say:  "For  our  part,  although  we  have  hitherto  acted  with 
the  Whigs  and  have  opposed  Mr.  Van  Buren  (as  we  probably 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Aug.  31,  1848. 

2  Indiana  State  Journal,  Sept.  I,  1848. 
8  American  Freeman,  Aug.  2,  1848. 


DISSATISFIED    WHIGS  AND  ABOLITIONISTS. 


147 


should  do  again  under  the  circumstances),  yet  ...  we  cannot 
agree  with  Taylor  men  in  charging  him  with  being  an  absolute 
Demon.  .  .  .  That  he  has  faults  we  readily  admit,  .  .  .  but 
looking  at  the  crisis  in  which  our  country  is  now  placed,  .  .  . 
we  feel  bound  by  the  most  solemn  considerations,  moral  and 
political,  to  do  what  may  be  in  our  power  in  advocating  the 
claims  of  Mr.  Van  Buren."1 

Moreover,  aside  from  the  nomination,  there  were  many 
things  at  the  Buffalo  Convention  which  failed  to  satisfy 
"Conscience"  Whigs.  Their  delegates  returned  to  their 
homes  in  New  England,  New  York,  and  Ohio  with  long  faces, 
and  not  infrequently  gave  vent  to  assertions  of  trickery  and 
underhanded  bargaining  on  the  part  of  Chase  and  the  Barn- 
burners; in  this  opinion  many  Liberty  men  joined,  feeling 
that  Chase,  Leavitt,  and  Stanton  had  played  them  false  and 
had  sacrificed  Hale.  Besides,  things  had  too  Democratic 
an  air;  Barnburners  were  too  much  in  evidence,  insisting  on 
their  own  "regularity";  and  the  name  "Free  Democracy" 
applied  to  the  new  party  had  an  unpleasant  sound.  Anti- 
slavery  Whigs,  outraged  as  they  were  at  the  conduct  of  their 
own  party,  felt  their  opposition  to  Taylor  die  away  when 
the  only  opportunity  offered  them  by  the  Buffalo  Convention 
was  that  of  supporting  an  unmitigated  Democrat  on  a  Demo- 
cratic platform  against  their  own  party.  Giddings,  in  close 
touch  with  the  people,  saw  this  clearly,  and  wrote  to  Sumner  : 
"  Our  letters  from  Ohio  assure  us  that  it  can  be  carried  for  any 
other  man  than  Van  Buren,  and  probably  with  him.  There  is 
a  large  class  of  Whigs,  however,  that  would  come  to  the  sup- 
port of  almost  any  man  who  will  not  support  him."2  It  was 
evident  to  the  dullest  observer  that,  should  the  Taylor  advo- 
cates in  the  North  have  the  shrewdness  to  take  Free  Soil 
ground,  the  chances  were  strong  that  Whig  Free  Soilers  would 
return  to  their  old  ranks. 

Political  animosities  developed  new  and  strange  forms  in 
this  campaign.  Throughout  the  Northwest,  Old  Line  Demo- 
crats  —  that  is,  either  men  of  Southern  birth  or  those  on  whom 

1  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Aug.  30,  1848. 

2  July  23,  1848:  Sumner  MSS.      ' 


148  FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

anti-slavery  principles  had  made  no  impression  —  acted  in  one 
way.  At  first  deprecating  the  action  of  the  New  York  Barn- 
burners, they  soon  came  to  condemn  it;  and  when  the  Utica 
and  Buffalo  nominations  were  made,  they  broke  out  into  bitter 
maledictions.  No  term  was  too  harsh,  or  sometimes  too  vile, 
to  apply  to  Van  Buren,  the  "  traitor,"  the  "  hypocrite,"  the 
"  Judas  Iscariot  of  the  nineteenth  century."  Everything  that 
had  ever  been  said  against  "abolitionists"  was  raked  up  and 
used  again,  to  blacken  the  character  and  the  motives  of  the 
ex-President.  Far  more  dangerous  to  the  success  of  the  Free 
Soilers,  however,  was  the  attitude  of  those  Democrats  who, 
while  supporting  Cass,  claimed  to  be  fully  as  antislavery  as 
Van  Buren's  followers.  At  the  present  day  it  seems  incredi- 
ble that  these  Free  Soil  Democrats  could  have  believed,  in 
view  of  the  Nicholson  letter,  that  Cass  was  a  suitable  anti- 
slavery  candidate ;  yet  such  is  the  force  of  persistent  assertion 
that  it  seems  highly  probable  that  its  power  was  successful  in 
hundreds  of  cases.  Democratic  papers,  without  a  shadow  of 
evidence  to  sustain  them,  claimed  "Cass  and  Free  Soil"  as 
their  party  cry.  "  The  Democratic  party  of  Wisconsin  is  the 
true  Free  Soil  party,"  said  the  Milwaukee  Wisconsin 1  again 
and  again.  "  Will  you  believe,"  cried  W.  P.  Lynde,  a  Demo- 
cratic Congressman  from  Wisconsin,  "  that  Lewis  Cass,  whose 
interests  and  associations  are  all  identified  with  the  West,  is 
not  a  Free  Soil  man?  No!  Gentlemen!"2  "Gen.  Cass," 
said  the  Waukesha  Democrat,  "  is  the  friend  of  Free  Territory, 
and  his  course  on  this  subject  is  and  has  been  consistent !  " 
The  Democrats  of  the  northern  counties  of  Illinois  went  far- 
ther than  this,  and  had  the  effrontery  —  no  milder  term  is 
adequate  —  to  issue  an  address  to  the  Free  Soilers,  saying: 
"Gen.  Cass  is  a  Northern  man  and  Western  man,  —  born  among 
the  free  hills  of  New  England,  reared  and  educated  in  the 
free  West.  At  no  one  period  of  his  life  did  he  ever  bend  to 
the  slave  power.  No  one  act  of  his  long  public  career  ever 
went  to  favor  slave  institutions."4 

1  Oct.  24,  1848.  2  Wisconsin  Freeman,  Aug.  30,  1848. 

8  Quoted  ibid.,  Sept.  20,  1848. 
4  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  27,  1848. 


ATTITUDE  OF  THE  OLD  PARTIES.  149 

With  the  Whigs  matters  took  a  somewhat  different  course. 
At  first  they  were  inclined  to  applaud  the  Free  Soil  movement, 
with  the  expectation  that  it  would  be  confined  to  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  "  We  rejoice  that  a  portion  of  the  Democrats  of 
our  State,"  said  the  Detroit  Advertiser,  "have  given  in  their 
adhesion  to  the  Whig  principles  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso." 1 
"  Cheering  indeed  it  is  to  Whigs,"  said  the  Chicago  Journal, 
"  to  see  this  movement  on  the  part  of  those  against  whom 
they  have  so  earnestly  battled.  Whatever  be  the  course  of  the 
[Buffalo]  Convention,  Whigs  can  look  on  without  anything  to 
fear  from  its  action.  .  .  .  We  are  therefore  pleased  to  see  this 
Free  Soil  movement." 2  When  the  Buffalo  Convention  met, 
however,  and  the  action  of  Massachusetts  and  Ohio  Whigs, 
together  with  the  spectacle  of  a  son  of  John  Quincy  Adams  on 
the  ticket,  showed  that  members  of  the  party  might,  and  prob- 
ably would,  vote  the  new  ticket,  a  rapid  change  took  place  in 
the  Whig  attitude.  Complacency  vanished,  and  a  vigorous 
denunciation  of  the  new  party  took  its  place.  From  this  time 
onwarcl  the  Whigs  aimed  to  prove  two  things:  that  Van  Buren 
was  unfit  for  any  Whig  to  support;  that  the  Whig  party,  with 
Taylor,  was  for  free  soil.  "  We  claim  to  be  as  much  opposed 
to  the  extension  of  slavery  as  any  other  person,"  said  the 
Indiana  State  Journal.  "  If  Gen.  Taylor  stood  pledged,  as 
Cass  does,  to  veto  [the  Wilmot  Proviso],  we  could  not  vote  for 
him.  Gen.  Taylor  stands  upon  the  only  true  ground,  —  that  of 
submission  to  the  will  of  the  People."  3  %  "  What  possible  bene- 
fit," asked  the  Detroit  Advertiser,  "  is  to  accrue  from  the  delib- 
erations of  the  Buffalo  Convention?  They  can  say  nothing 
in  favor  of  free  soil,  free  men,  or  free  speech  that  is  not  said 
daily  by  the  Whig  party.  The  members  of  that  Convention 
know  full  well  that  the  Whig  party  is  the  true  anti-slavery  party 
of  the  country.  To  ask  a  Whig  to  vote  for  Martin  Van  Buren 
is  an  insult."  4 

When  the  Liberty  men  participated  in  the  new  movement, 
all  the  smouldering  rancor  of  1844  flamed  up  to  aggravate 
Whig  objections.  "  The  readiness  with  which  the  political  abo- 

1  Jan.  15,  1848.  2  July  24,  1848. 

8  July  31,  1848.  4  Aug.  4,  1848. 


FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

litionists  fraternize  with  the  new  faction  calling  itself  the  Free 
Soil  party,"  said  the  Indiana  State  Journal,  "  is  conclusive 
proof  that  it  is  but  another  name  for  abolitionism.  The  past 
acts  of  the  abolitionists  will  best  test  the  sincerity  of  their  con- 
victions." J  After  rehearsing  the  "crime"  of  Birney  in  1844, 
the  Milwaukee  Sentinel  said  :  "  And  now  the  same  leaders  who 
helped  to  fasten  these  wrongs  upon  us  are  engaged  in  a  like 
hopeful  task.  .  .  .  Now  can  it  be  that  any  Whigs,  with  a  keen 
remembrance  of  the  campaign  of  1844  still  in  their  minds, 
will  lend  themselves  to  a  repetition  of  the  same  third-party 
swindle?"2  The  Whig  State  Central  Committee  of  Michigan 
summed  up  the  argument  by  saying:  "  Every  Whig  vote  given 
to  a  third  candidate  helps  to  elect  Cass.  The  Whig  party  of 
the  North  has  always  gone  to  the  utmost  verge  of  the  Consti- 
tution in  its  opposition  to  the  slave  power.  It  is,  it  ever  has  been, 
a  true  free  soil  party.  .  .  .  Beware  of  the  impracticable  course 
which  in  1844  made  the  loudest  professed  friends  of  freedom 
the  means  of  annexing  Texas."  3 

With  all  three  parties  claiming  to  be  in  favor  of  free  soil,  and 
each  assailing  the  candidates  of  the  other  two  as  liars  and  hypo- 
crites, the  campaign  had  by  September  grown  acrimonious  to 
the  last  degree.  In  two  places,  particularly,  the  bitterness 
reached  its  greatest  strength,  —  in  the  Fourth  Congressional 
District  of  Illinois,  and  on  the  Western  Reserve  of  Ohio.  In 
Illinois  everything  hinged  upon  Wentworth's  course.  He  had 
been  a  staunch  Wilmot  Proviso  man,  and  in  his  paper,  the 
Chicago  Democrat,  had  constantly  advocated  Free  Soil  prin- 
ciples; and  although  he  placed  the  name  of  Cass  at  the  head 
of  his  columns,  not  a  word  of  comment  appeared.  Day  after 
day  passed  and  still  no  sign  was  made,  in  spite  of  the  taunt 
of  the  Whig  Journal,  "  Keep  it  before  the  people  that  Went- 
worth  dares  not  say  a  word  in  favor  of  Gen.  Cass."4  While 
Wentworth  was  "on  the  fence,"  the  district  Democratic  Con- 
vention met,  and,  under  his  influence,  tabled  a  resolution  sup- 
porting Cass,  thus  causing  a  bolt  and  a  separate  nomination 

1  July  31,  1848.  .     2  Sept.  18,  1848. 

8  Detroit  Advertiser,  Oct.  10,  i! 
4  Chicago  Journal,  June  3,  1848. 


LOCAL   FREE  SOIL  LEADERS.  IS  I 

of  J.  B.  Thomas  as  an  "  Administration  Democrat."  Had 
Wentworth  at  this  juncture  possessed  the  courage  to  throw  in 
his  lot  with  the  new  party,  the  history  of  Free  Soil  in  the 
Northwest  might  have  been  different;  for  his  personal  popu- 
larity, joined  to  the  intense  anti-slavery  feeling  of  that  region, 
would  have  insured  his  election  to  stand  beside  Giddings  and 
Durkee,  and  might  have  made  the  counties  of  northern  Illinois 
as  famous  as  the  Western  Reserve.  After  Taylor's  nomina- 
tion, however,  the  Democrat  began  to  support  Cass;  and,  to 
the  disappointment  of  thousands  in  Illinois  and  Wisconsin,  it 
was  apparent  that  "  Long  John  "  had  chosen  to  stay  with  his 
party.  The  bolting  candidate  then  withdrew,  and  Wentworth 
was  again  triumphantly  elected  over  Scammon  and  Lovejoy. 

In  Ohio,  as  usual,  we  expect  to  find  the  most  interesting 
events  during  the  time  that  elapsed  between  the  Buffalo  Con- 
vention and  the  national  election.  Since  the  Free  Soil  revolt 
was  greatest  among  Whigs,  the  fight  between  Taylor  men  and  J 
Free  Soilers  was  a  repetition,  on  a  larger  scale,  of  the  strug- 
gle of  1844.  At  the  head  of  the  Ohio  Free  Soil  Whigs  stood 
Giddings,  whose  popular  hold  on  the  Reserve  was  very  strong; 
his  power  is  only  realized  when  we  consider  that  he  was  able  in 
one  year  to  split  in  two  the  Whig  party  of  that  region,  and  to 
turn  the  strongest  Whig  district  of  1844  into  one  of  the  strong- 
est for  Van  Buren  in  1848,  and  this  in  the  teeth  of  a  Free  Soil 
Presidential  nomination  as  distasteful  to  the  Reserve  as  could 
possibly  have  been  devised. 

It  would  be  interesting  and  profitable  to  consider  the  causes 
of  Giddings's  hold,  and  the  ways  in  which  it  was  manifested  in 
1848  ;  the  biographer  of  Cass  sums  it  up  in  a  sentence:  "John 
Q.  Adams  led  his  district  and  showed  it  the  way.  But  Giddings 
was  the  child  of  his  surroundings,  the  voice  and  expression  of 
the  will  of  his  constituents." l  Upon  his  head  fell  the  curses 
of  all  those  Whigs  who  clung  to  the  old  party.  When,  in 
January,  1848,  he  refused  tp  vote  for  Robert  C.  Winthrop  for 
Speaker,  and  justified  his  course  in  a  public  letter,  the  Chicago 
Journal  said :  "  It  will  take  more  than  one  such  letter  to  con- 
vince the  Whigs  of  his  district  and  the  country  that  he  acted  a 
1  A.  C.  McLaughlin,  Lewis  Cass,  253. 


152  FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

manly  or  patriotic  part ;  "  1  and  the  Cleveland  Herald  said  warn- 
ingly :  "  We  tell  Mr.  Giddings  that  for  all  he  is,  he  is  directly 
indebted  to  the  Whig  party.  Their  caucuses  have  nominated 
him.  Whig  votes  have  elected  him.  For  twelve  years  he  has 
been  fed  and  clothed  upon  Whig  bounty."2  From  this  time 
the  dislike  of  regular  Whigs  for  Giddings  increased  daily,  until, 
when  he  renounced  the  Whig  party,  the  Indiana  State  Jour- 
nal called  his  action  "  the  most  cheering  news  we  have  heard 
lately,"3  and  the  Chicago  Journal  observed:  "  It  is  usually  the 
case  when  individuals  part  with  their  honor  they  abandon  them- 
selves to  the  worst  passions  of  human  nature." 4  On  the  Re- 
serve itself,  in  spite  of  his  "  apostasy,"  enough  Whigs  stood  by 
him,  at  the  regular  convention  of  the  party,  to  bring  about  his 
nomination  by  71  out  of  95  votes.  This  was  more  than  the 
Taylor  men  could  endure,  and  they  supported  an  independ- 
ent Whig  candidate,  in  whose  favor  the  regular  Democratic 
nominee  presently  resigned.  In  the  intense  bitterness  of  the 
struggle,  a  former  law  instructor  of  Mr.  Giddings,  Mr.  Elisha 
Whittlesey,  issued  a  printed  leaflet  charging  Giddings  with 
having  drawn  unnecessary  mileage  as  Congressman;  and  this 
sheet  was  distributed  all  over  his  district.5 

While  this  three-cornered  fight  was  raging,  the  State  election 
took  place  in  October.  As  the  Free  Soilers  had  no  ticket, 
and  seemed  to  hold  the  balance  of  power,  they  counted  on 
deciding  the  election,  and  eagerly  expected  the  result  to  show 
their  strength.  Between  Seabury  Ford,  the  Whig  nominee, 
and  J.  B.  Weller,  the  Democratic,  no  true  anti-slavery  man  could 
hesitate  for  a  moment.  Ford  was  not  especially  strong  in  his 
opposition  to  slavery,  but  he  was  at  least  inclined  that  way, 
whereas  Weller  was  unqualifiedly  pro-slavery  ;  indeed,  it  was  he 
who  had  moved  the  censure  of  Giddings  in  1842.  Though  not 
supporting  Ford  with  any  enthusiasm,  Free  Soil  papers  in  general 
advised  their  readers  to  vote  for  him  in  order  to  rebuke  Weller; 6 

1  Jan.  15,  1848.  2  Quoted  in  True  Democrat,  Jan.  8,  1848. 

8  July  12,  1848.  4  July  18,  1848. 

6  See  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  of  J.  R.  Giddings,  253-255 ;  and  A.  G.  Riddle, 
in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  VI.,  154-156. 
6  True  Democrat,  Oct.  9,  1848. 


OHIO  STATE  ELECTION.  153 

and  it  was  confidently  expected  that  the  Whig  ticket  would 
receive  a  handsome  majority.  Ford,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
fate  of  Henry  Clay  in  1844,  absolutely  refused  to  commit 
himself  on  political  questions  farther  than  to  say  that  he  should 
vote  in  November  "  by  ballot."  When  the  vote  was  counted, 
however,  to  the  amazement  of  all,  the  expected  Whig  gains  did 
not  appear;  and  after  some  days,  during  which  Weller  was 
credited  with  the  victory,  Ford's  election  by  a  bare  majority 
was  finally  conceded,  as  follows:  Whig  —  Ford,  148,666;  Demo- 
cratic—  Weller,  148, 32 1.1 

The  effect  of  this  vote  on  the  Whig  managers  in  Ohio  was 
terrifying.  In  their  alarm  they  at  first  tried  to  make  it  appear 
that  more  Free  Soilers  had  voted  for  Weller  than  for  Ford  ;  but 
this  supposition  was  manifestly  absurd.  They  were  soon  left 
face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  their  State  candidate,  aided  pre- 
sumably by  the  major  part  of  the  Free  Soilers,  was  just  able  to 
win.  It  therefore  seemed  likely  that,  in  November,  Ohio,  though 
a  Whig  State  in  national  elections  since  1836,  would  now  go  for 
Cass  through  the  defection  of  former  Whigs,  now  Free  Soilers, 
to  Van  Btiren.  Such  cries  of  rage  went  up,  and  such  urgent 
appeals  for  help,  that  from  every  side  Whig  leaders  rushed  to 
the  rescue.  Said  the  National  Era  :  "  The  most  powerful 
efforts  are  being  made  to  break  down  the  Free  Soil  movement 
in  Ohio.  Messrs.  Granger  and  Seward,  we  perceive,  are  to 
make  a  descent  on  the  Western  Reserve,  and  a  large  importa- 
tion of  Kentucky  orators  is  announced.  Horace  Greeley,  too, 
over  his  own  name  issued  a  few  days  since  a  manifesto  as  long 
as  a  Presidential  Inaugural,  appealing  with  weeping  and  wail- 
ing and  lamentation  to  the  Buckeyes  to  come  to  the  help  of 
*  Old  Zach.'  "  2  To  these  influences  Tom  Corwin,  Ohio's  favorite 
son,  and  B.  F.  Wade  added  their  eloquence  ;  they  stumped  the 
Western  Reserve ;  while,  as  the  Cleveland  True  Democrat  said, 
"  the  country  was  flooded  with  New  York  Tribunes." 

The  closing  weeks  of  October  were  stirring  times.  After  the 
Whigs  and  Democrats  of  the  Northwest  had  exhausted  the 
capabilities  of  the  English  language  in  condemning,  abusing,  and 
vilifying  the  Free  Soil  party  and  its  leaders,  and  in  claiming  for 

1  True  Democrat,  December,  1848.  2  Oct.  26,  1848. 


154  FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

themselves  the  true  Free  Territory  position,  they  now  seemed 
to  unite  in  an  effort  to  cry  down  the  new  movement.  It  was 
asserted  and  reiterated  ad  infinitum>  from  Maine  to  Iowa,  that 
the  movement  was  dying  away,  that  former  Whigs  and  Demo- 
crats were  returning  to  their  parties,  that  the  people  had  seen 
through  the  Buffalo  swindle,  and  that  on  election  day  the  dis- 
credited and  exposed  leaders  of  a  hopeless  cause  would  be  left 
with  only  those  behind  them  who  four  years  before  had  fol- 
lowed the  fanatic  Birney.  The  Free  Soilers,  on  their  part,  kept 
on  hitting  right  and  left,  and  with  each  succeeding  week  grew 
more  and  more  determined.  In  spite  of  its  newness,  the  party 
had  no  lack  of  mouthpieces,  for  there  were  at  this  time  prob- 
ably sixty-five  or  seventy  newspapers  in  the  Northwest  that 
supported  Van  Buren.1  In  Ohio  and  Wisconsin,  up  to  the  eve 
of  the  election,  the  Free  Soilers  talked  as  if  they  really  expected 
to  carry  the  State.  There  was  no  flagging,  except  among  a  few 
Whigs,  and  no  loss  of  courage.  As  the  storm  of  abuse  grew 
fiercer,  the  Free  Soilers  responded  in  kind, .and  from  stump  and 
newspaper  hurled  back  their  defiance  and  hatred  of  Cass  and 
Taylor  in  terms  fully  as  opprobrious  as  those  with  which  Van 
Buren  was  assailed. 

The  campaign  came  to  an  end  on  November  9,  after  a 
contest  of  unparalleled  bitterness  and  blackguardism.  In  the 
country  at  large  the  vote  stood  as  follows:  Taylor,  1,360,099; 
Cass,  1,220,544;  Van  Buren,  291,263.  Cass  carried  every 
Northwestern  State.2  Distasteful  as  was  his  attitude  on  slavery 
and  on  internal  improvements  to  many  people,  particularly  to 

1  Of  these  the  names  of  fifty-three  are  known,  of  which  eight  were  Lib- 
erty, eight  Whig,  thirteen  Democratic,  and  twenty-four  campaign  papers. 
Ohio  had  twenty-one,  Illinois  eleven,  Indiana  eight,  Michigan  eight,  Wiscon- 
sin six,  Iowa  two.  On  the  Reserve  alone  there  were  nine  papers. 


Cass. 

Taylor. 

Van  Buren. 

2  Ohio      .... 

154,775 

138,360 

35^354 

Indiana 

74,745 

69,907 

8,100 

Michigan   . 

30,687 

23,940 

10,389 

Illinois  .... 

56,300 

53,047 

15,774 

Wisconsin      .     . 

15,001 

13,747 

10,418 

Iowa      .... 

12,093 

11,144 

1,126 

See  official  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1849. 


FREE  SOIL    VOTE  IN  THE  NORTHWEST.  155 

business  men,  there  were  thousands  of  farmers  and  backwoods- 
men to  whom  these  matters  were  of  small  account  beside  the 
fact  that  the  Democratic  candidate  was  a  representative  North- 
western man  and  a  pioneer.  Nevertheless,  in  Illinois  and  Wis- 
consin the  Free  Soil  revolt  came  very  near  giving  these  States 
to  Taylor.  In  Ohio,  on  the  contrary,  Cass  profited  directly 
from  the  third-party  movement,  for  there  the  Whig  revolt  was 
much  greater  than  the  Democratic,  so  that,  though  Cass  re- 
ceived the  highest  Democratic  vote  on  record,  the  Whig  vote 
was  less  than  that  of  1844. 

In  the  States  taken  separately  the  Free  Soilers  had  varying 
fortunes,  but  in  none  of  them,  except  perhaps  in  Wisconsin,  did 
they  begin  to  approach  the  success  which  they  had  anticipated. 
In  Ohio  the  total  Free  Soil  vote  of  35,000  was  less  than  it 
might  have  been  because  of  Van  Buren's  candidacy,  especially 
on  the  Western  Reserve  ;  for,  as  the  True  Democrat  said,  "  In 
no  portion  of  the  Union  were  prejudices  so  strong  against 
Martin  Van  Buren.  .  .  .  There  were  many  Free  Soil  men  who 
could  not  vote  for  Mr.  Van  Buren,  they  had  not  confidence  in 
the  man.  .  .  .  John  P.  Hale,  Judge  McLean,  or  any  other  man 
would  have  received  at  least  10,000  more  votes  on  the  Reserve 
than  were  cast  for  Martin  Van  Buren."  l  The  net  diminution  in 
the  total  vote  was  8,474,  nearly  all  of  which  was  due  to  disap- 
pointed Whigs  and  Liberty  men,  who  in  the  event  of  another 
nomination  would  have  voted  the  third  ticket.  The  low  vote  in 
the  State  at  large,  as  well  as  on  the  Reserve,  was  charged  by 
Chase  to  the  efforts  of  the  Whig  orators  who  had  stumped  the 
State  in  October.  Of  Corwin's  work  he  said :  "  He  traversed 
the  whole  State  speaking  to  large  assemblies  and  to  small,  at 
the  principal  points  and  in  obscure  villages,  saying,  '/  know 
Gen.  Taylor  will  not  veto  the  Proviso.'  Though  we  did  all 
we  could  to  counteract  it,  yet,  being  scattered  over  a  large 

1  Nov.  14-18,  1848.  This  claim  is  probably  not  excessive,  for  the  votes 
of  1844  and  1848  compare  as  follows:  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Liberty.  Total. 

1844      .      .      .      20,460  28,017  3.254  5I»73I 

1848      .      .      .      12,876  I4,5H  15370  43.257 

-7,584  -13,506  +12,616  -8,474 


FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

territory  with  hardly  any  pecuniary  resources  and  a  very  imper- 
fect organization  and  little  or  no  mutual  concert  or  co-operation 
among  our  committees  or  speakers,  all  our  efforts  did  not  avail 
much." 1  The  result  merely  goes  to  show  how  difficult  it  is, 
when  party  feeling  is  high,  to  get  men  to  abandon  old  associates 
for  new.  Chase,  Lewis,  Giddings,  Root,  Brinckerhoff,  had  done 
all  that  men  could  do ;  yet  the  Free  Soilers  outside  the  Reserve 
were  but  slightly  more  successful  than  the  Liberty  party  had 
been. 

In  Indiana,  the  vote  of  8,100,  although  large  as  compared  with 
the  previous  Liberty  maximum  of  2,278,  was  too  slight  to  have 
much  significance  in  the  result.  It  seems  to  have  been  com- 
posed of  Whigs  and  Democrats  in  equal  proportions.  In 
Michigan,  Cass's  personal  popularity  raised  the  Democratic 
vote  considerably  above  any  previous  mark.  The  Free  Soil  vote 
of  10,389  was  almost  three  times  as  large  as  the  Liberty  maxi- 
mum, and  singularly  like  it  in  details  of  composition  and  dis- 
tribution ;  it  was  drawn  largely  from  Whigs  and  was  very  evenly 
scattered  over  the  State.  The  leaders  of  the  party  were  mainly 
Democrats. 

In  Illinois,  the  total  of  15,774,  almost  exactly  three  times  the 
Liberty  vote  of  1846,  came  from  the  northwestern  counties,  and 
was  drawn  almost  entirely  from  Democratic  ranks.2  Had 
Wentworth  thrown  his  influence  on  the  side  of  Van  Buren,  it 
seems  not  unlikely  that  the  Free  Soil  vote,  increased  to  still 
greater  extent  in  this  region,  might  have  drawn  enough  Demo- 
cratic votes  to  give  the  State  to  Taylor.  Wisconsin  made  the 
best  proportional  showing  in  the  Northwest,  its  10,418  Free  Soil 
votes  marking  an  increase  of  9,284  over  the  vote  of  the  Liberty 
party,  and  making  twenty-six  per  cent,  of  the  total.  The  intimate 
connection  of  the  vote  with  local  conditions  of  settlement  with- 
out regard  to  State  lines  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  it  was  con- 
centrated in  the  southeastern  counties,  closely  contiguous  to  the 
Free  Soil  regions  of  Illinois.  Of  the  new  members  of  the  party 

1  Chase  to  Sumner,  Nov.  27,  1848:  Sumner  MSS. 

Democratic.  Whig.  Antislavery. 

2  1846 58,576        36.939         5»H7 

1848 56,300        53,047        15,774 


ELEMENTS  OF  THE  NEW  PARTY.  157 

rather  more  were  Democrats  than  Whigs.  Iowa  made  its  first 
appearance  in  a  national  election  with  an  anti-slavery  vote  of 
1,126,  concentrated  in  the  southeastern  counties  bordering  on 
Illinois.  Many,  probably  half,  of  the  Iowa  Free  Soilers  were 
Liberty  men  ;  the  remainder  were  largely  Whig.1 

In  Congressional  and  State  elections  the  Free  Soilers  of  the 
Northwest  exhibited  toward  the  old  parties  all  possible  relations, 
from  complete  identity  to  absolute  separation.  The  phrase 
"  Free  Soil "  had  no  significance  in  local  matters  during  the 
summer,  for  it  was  as  freely  claimed  by  candidates  of  the  regular 
parties  as  by  the  followers  of  Van  Buren.  Since  the  Buffalo  Con- 
vention was  not  held  until  August  9,  the  Free  Soil  party  had  no 
time  to  organize  in  those  States  which  held  elections  in  summer 
or  in  early  autumn.  Men  who  had  intended  to  support  Van 
Buren  voted  as  they  saw  fit,  usually  for  men  of  their  previous 
political  faith,  in  whose  behalf,  from  August  to  October,  the  cry 
of  "  Free  Soil  "  was  raised  in  deafening  chorus  by  eager  parti- 
sans of  both  parties,  in  every  district  where  the  anti-slavery  sym- 
pathies of  voters  might  affect  the  result.  In  Ohio,  Giddings  and 
several  other  Congressmen  who  were  classed  as  Free  Soilers 
were  put  in  regular  nomination  by  Whig  conventions,  and  were 
elected.  Fusion,  properly  so  called,  was  absent ;  but  confusion 
reigned.  In  the  State  legislative  elections  the  same  conditions 
existed,  "  Free  Soil  "  Whigs  and  Democrats  being  chosen,  as  well 
as  unclassified  members  of  the  old  parties,  together  with  two  or 
three  independents. 

The  Indiana  State  election  occurred  in  August,  while  as  yet 
the  Free  Soil  movement  was  inchoate.  No  Free  Soilers  as  such 
were  chosen,  although  there  were  some  coalitions  of  Liberty 
men  and  Democrats.  Illinois  and  Iowa,  having  summer  elec- 
tions also,  usually  lacked  distinct  Free  Soil  candidates;  al- 
though in  Illinois  the  Liberty  party  still  existed  and  in  Iowa 
some  third-party  tickets  were  run.  Wisconsin  and  Michigan 
alone  in  the  Northwest,  held  State  and  national  elections  on  the 
same  day  and  hence  had  time  to  disentangle  the  new  party  from 
the  old  ones.  In  both  States  separate  Free  Soil  candidates  were 
nominated  for  each  Congressional  district,  and  many  separate 
1  Letters  of  I.  H.  Julian  to  the  author,  May,  1896. 


FREE  SOIL   CAMPAIGN. 

legislative  and  local  nominations  were  made.  By  November, 
Wisconsin  Free  Soilers  were  more  thoroughly  organized  than 
those  of  any  other  Northwestern  State  ;  and  in  the  election  they 
had  the  extreme  satisfaction  of  electing  to  Congress,  from  the 
southeastern  district,  a  stanch  Liberty  man,  Charles  Durkee ; 
they  also  chose  nearly  twenty  members  of  the  legislature, 
some  of  them  by  coalition. 

In  Michigan  the  course  of  events  took  a  different  turn.  In 
October,  after  Free  Soil  organization  had  progressed  far  toward 
completeness,  a  movement  began  toward  Whig  coalition.  In 
Oakland,  Wayne,  Monroe,  and  probably  in  other  counties,  con- 
ventions of  these  two  parties  fraternized,  and  united  on  common 
tickets.  "  We  do  not  differ  upon  any  question  of  State  or  local 
policy  now  before  us,"  said  the  Wayne  County  Free  Soilers  ; 
"  let  us  arouse  from  our  slumbers,  throw  to  the  winds  our  dis- 
sensions, and  present  a  common  front  to  our  common  foe."  1 
The  fact  that  the  name  of  S.  M.  Holmes,  hitherto  a  leading 
Liberty  man,  was  attached  to  the  foregoing  appeal  indicates  a 
radical  change  in  anti-slavery  policy.  Still  farther  to  signalize 
this  feeling  for  union,  D.  C.  Lawrence,  the  Free  Soil  nominee 
for  Congress  in  the  Second  District,  in  a  public  letter  resigned 
in  favor  of  W.  Sprague,  the  Whig  candidate.  This  action  was 
greeted  with  a  salvo  of  Whig  applause,  the  same  newspapers 
which  the  day  before  had  been  vituperating  the  Free  Democracy 
now  beginning  to  find  the  new  party  not  wholly  bad.  "  The 
Hon.  D.  C.  Lawrence,"  said  the  Detroit  Advertiser,  "shows  a  de- 
votion and  attachment  to  Free  Soil  principles  alike  honorable 
to  himself  and  the  cause  of  freedom.  ...  Is  it  policy  under  these 
circumstances  to  contend  about  men  while  the  enemy  secure 
the  victory?  We  think  not.  Let  those  among  the  Free  Soil 
[i.  e.,  Wilmot  Proviso]  candidates  who  have  done  most  in  the 
cause  during  the  campaign  be  united  upon  and  supported." 2 
The  self-abnegation  of  the  Michigan  Free  Soilers  might  be  ex- 
cellent policy  ;  but  some  element  other  than  mere  devotion  to 
principle  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  coalitions  were  all  between 
Free  Soilers  and  Whigs.  The  real  reason  lay  in  the  strong  per- 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Oct.  31,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  Nov.  i,  1848. 


FREE  SOIL   COALITIONS  IN  MICHIGAN.  159 

sonal  antagonism  felt  toward  Cass  by  very  many  of  the  Free 
Soilers,  who,  in  their  desire  to  destroy  his  hold  on  the  State, 
were  willing  to  go  to  the  length  of  union  with  Taylor  Whigs.1 

Michigan's  action  was  the  first  unmistakable  sign  that  the 
Free  Soil  party,  in  spite  of  the  large  admixture  of  Liberty  men, 
was  to  adopt  a  fundamentally  different  policy  from  that  adhered 
to  by  political  abolitionists  since  1840  ;  but  in  every  North- 
western State  there  was  in  this  election  a  confusion  between 
parties,  a  vagueness  in  the  sense  of  the  term  "  Free  Soil,"  and  a 
willingness  to  coalesce,  all  pointing  the  same  way.  If  the  new 
party  was  ready  for  coalition,  this  election  of  1848  opened  a 
wide  field  ;  for  in  each  Northwestern  State  the  Free  Soilers  held/sj 
the  balance  of  power.  This  advantage  was  not  unprecedented 
in  Liberty  party  annals  ;  but,  owing  to  the  separatist  policy 
of  the  abolitionists,  hitherto  it  had  not  been  pushed  to  its 
result ;  thenceforth  it  was  destined  to  become  of  the  utmost 
importance. 

1  Ann  Arbor  True  Democrat ',  Sept.  21,  Oct.  12,  1848. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  OHIO   SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 
1849. 

WHEN  the  election  of  1848  was  over,  the  exhausted  Free  Soil 
leaders  of  the  country  sat  down  to  consider  the  state  of  their 
cause.  It  was  evident  even  to  the  most  enthusiastic  among 
them  that  the  political  revolt,  dramatic  as  it  had  been,  had 
failed  to  create  at  a  blow  the  hoped-for  Northern  anti-slavery 
party.  No  State  had  been  carried  for  Van  Buren;  nor  was  the 
Free  Soil  ticket  higher  than  third  in  number  of  votes,  except  in 
New  York,  Vermont,  and  Massachusetts.  Possibly  this  result 
was  due  to  the  fact  that  Van  Buren's  candidacy  had  hurt  the 
cause  by  repelling  anti-slavery  Whigs ;  for  it  is  certain  that 
thousands  who,  after  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  had  vowed 
never  to  support  Taylor,  preferred  to  eat  their  words  rather 
than  to  vote  for  the  hated  "  little  Van."  "  The  recent  vote," 
said  an  lowan,  "  was  no  test  of  opinion  in  the  Northwest.  Many 
strong  Free  Soilers  would  not  support  the  Van  Buren  ticket 
for  various  reasons,  —  dislike  of  the  man  and  of  the  managers 
and  of  some  points  in  the  policy  of  the  party,  and  because  they 
believed  that  to  vote  for  it  was  virtually  to  defeat  the  object  in 
view." l  The  Western  Citizen,  of  Chicago,  said :  "  By  the  nomi- 
nation of  J.  P.  Hale  as  candidate,  the  Free  Soilers  would  have 
secured  a  much  firmer  hold  upon  the  moral  sentiment  of  the 
country.  .  .  .  Mr.  Hale  would  have  polled  a  much  larger  vote 
than  Van  Buren.  He  probably  would  not  have  secured  as 
many  from  the  old  Democratic  party,  but  we  mistake  if  the  de- 

1  Quoted  by  H.  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States, 
III.,  403,  note. 


FREE  SOILERS  DETERMINE   TO  PERSEVERE.      l6l 

ficiency  would  not  have  been  more  than  made  up  by  adherents 
from  the  Whig  ranks."  l  In  any  case,  regrets  were  of  no  use, 
and  the  Free  Soil  leaders  recognized  their  failure. 

Had  the  new  party,  then,  any  reason  for  continuing?  Had 
not  the  Barnburners  done  all  that  could  be  expected  by  their 
effective  protest  against  Cass?  Would  it  not  be  proper  in 
State  matters  to  allow  other  considerations  than  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  to  shape  the  course  of  the  party?  The  Buffalo  plat- 
form had  resolved  "  to  fight  on,  fight  ever,  till  victory  shall  re- 
ward our  efforts  "  ;  and  now  in  1848  the  Free  Soil  press  in  the 
Northwest  almost  unanimously  avowed  itself  in  favor  of  keep- 
ing up  the  party  until  its  objects  should  be  attained.  "  The  cam- 
paign of  1848  is  now  ended,"  said  the  Cleveland  True  Democrat, 
"  but  not  so  the  mission  of  our  party.  Yesterday's  sun  went 
down  upon  a  field  of  political  strife  where  truth  and  principle 
were  worsted.  To-day  it  rises  in  glory  upon  our  invincible  host; 
.  .  .  this  day  begins  the  campaign  of  1852."  2  "  Rapid  as  has  been 
our  progress,"  cried  the  Ravenna  Star,  "  from  this  hour  we  date 
the  commencement  of  a  more  rapid  progress.  Fight  on  !  "  2  The 
Sandusky  Daily  Mirror  asserted :  "  There  is  nothing  in  the 
present  aspect  of  affairs  to  dishearten  the  friends  of  Freedom. 
.  .  .  The  great  Northwest  will  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  with 
New  York  in  the  contest."  3  The  Western  Reserve  Chronicle,  after 
a  regretful  farewell  to  the  Whig  party,  said,  "  By  the  conduct  of 
the  Hunkers  our  organization  is  made  a  distinct  one,  and  it  be- 
comes our  duty  to  use  every  laudable  exertion  to  extend  Free 
Soil  influence  by  electing  Free  Soil  champions  to  office."  4  "  The 
present  Free  Soil  movement  is  not  restricted  to  a  single  elec- 
tion," said  the  Western  Citizen.  "  Even  if  we  should  be  suc- 
cessful and  elect  our  candidates  we  should  not  disband.  Much 
less  will  we  do  so  before  we  have  elected  any  to  carry  into  exe- 
cution the  will  of  the  Free  Soil  people.  We  feel  more  encour- 
aged to  work  on  and  fight  on.  The  right  will  triumph,  though 
the  reformer  may  be  despised  and  a  radical  party  overborne  by 
numbers  for  the  time  being.  Work  on  and  keep  working."4 

1  Quoted  in  the  Milwaukee  Wisconsin,  Nov.  17,  1848. 
3  Quoted  in  National  Era,  Nov.  23,  1848. 
8  Quoted  ibid.>  Nov.  30,  1848.  J  Quoted  ibid. 

ii 


162  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

If  the  new  party  were  to  be  permanent,  it  was  confronted 
by  the  same  problem  which  had  vexed  the  Liberty  men  for 
seven  years,  —  the  task  of  building  up  a  new  political  organiza- 
tion until  it  should  be  strong  enough  to  supplant  one  of  the 
older  ones.  This  end  the  Liberty  party  had  tried  to  attain  by 
absolute  separation ;  but  such  a  course  the  Free  Democracy,  in 
1849,  almost  without  exception,  declined  to  adopt.  They  pre- 
ferred instead  to  bring  their  influence  to  bear  directly  upon 
State  and  Congressional  candidates  of  other  parties,  whenever 
it  was  possible  to  do  so,  —  a  decision  that  plunged  the  new 
party  into  a  career  of  intrigues,  bargaining,  and  "practical 
politics,"  strikingly  unlike  the  open,  independent  action  of  its 
predecessor. 

._Xhe-pplicy  of  opportunism  was  more  thoroughly  carried  out 
in  the  Northwest  than  elsewhere,  owing  to  the  peculiar  nature 
of  the  Western  parties.  In  New  England,  although  coalition 
played  a  small  part,  the  Free  Democracy  showed  much  of  that 
fixity  which  since  1841  had  characterized  the  Liberty  party. 
In  the  Middle  States  the  Free  Soil  party  simply  vanished,  more 
completely  even  than  had  the  Liberty  party  after  1844  J  but  in 
the  Northwest  the  third  party,  having  some  of  the  toughness 
of  the  New  England  wing,  exhibited  a  greater  daring  in  coali- 
tions and  political  manoeuvres,  which  led  to  prodigious  fluctua- 
tions. In  each  State  the  local  organization  so  followed  its  own 
course  that  in  no  two  do  we  find  a  closely  similar,  or  even 
parallel,  party  history;  until  in  1852  a  Presidential  campaign 
brought  local  managers  once  more  into  line.  To  treat  the 
States  together  chronologically  is,  then,  impossible,  and  the 
method  adopted  will  be  to  take  each  separately  for  the  years 
1849-50. 

The  new  party  suffered  in  Ohio  as  in  all  the  other  Western 
States  except  Wisconsin,  from  the  fact  that  it  had  not  had  time 
to  disentangle  itself  entirely  from  the  old  parties  till  after  the 
State  election  in  October.  Hardly  was  the  national  election 
over,  when  the  evil  results  of  this  confusion  became  apparent. 
In  the  Senate  of  the  legislature  which  met  in  December, 
1848,  there  were  seventeen  Democrats,  fourteen  Whigs,  and 
three  Free  Soilers;  there  were  thirty-two  Democratic  Repre- 


PARTIES  IN  OHIO  LEGISLATURE.  163 

sentatives,  thirty  Whigs,  and  eight  Free  Soilers ;  besides  some 
contested  seats.1  A  serious  difficulty,  which  confronted  the 
legislature  at  the  outset,  was  a  dispute  over  a  law  passed  by 
the  Whigs  the  year  before,  dividing  Hamilton  County  into 
Representative  districts.  The  Whigs  expected  thus  to  gain  two 
members;  but  the  Democrats  held  the  law  unconstitutional 
both  in  its  substance  and  in  the  manner  of  its  enactment.  To 
mark  their  convictions,  the  Democrats  of  Hamilton  County 
had  voted  without  regard  to  the  new  law ;  and  to  their  candi- 
dates, Pugh  and  Pierce,  a  Democratic  election  clerk  had  given 
certificates.  Party  feeling  ran  high,  overriding  for  the  time  even 
national  issues.  When  the  day  for  convening  the  Legislature 
arrived,  in  December,  the  Democrats,  breaking  into  the  Capitol 
at  an  early  hour,  swore  in  all  their  claimants,  and,  when  the 
astonished  Whigs  appeared,  were  in  session  as  the  regular 
legislature.  Without  any  hesitation  the  Whigs  formed  a 
House  of  their  own  in  another  part  of  the  room,  and  a  dead- 
lock was  the  result,  neither  side  willing  to  yield  an  inch.  This 
was  the  great  opportunity  of  the  eight  so-called  Free  Soil  mem- 
bers, who  held  the  balance  of  power;  but  they  lost  their  heads 
and  went  with  their  former  parties.  Five  had  been  elected  by 
Whig  votes,  one  by  Democratic,  and  two  only,  Townshend  of 
Lorain,  and  Morse  of  Lake,  as  independent  third-party  men. 

In  the  Senate,  meanwhile,  the  Free  Soilers,  holding  the  bal- 
ance of  power,  had  controlled  organization  by  an  arrangement 
with  the  Whigs ;  and  their  example  inspired  the  House  Free 
Soilers  to  recover  themselves  and  take  the  lead  in  overtures  for 
some  plan  of  organization.  For  this  purpose  A.  G.  Riddle  was 
sworn  into  both  the  rival  lower  Houses,  serving  as  an  official 
mouthpiece.  Townshend,  a  former  Liberty  man,  was  first  in 
the  field,  with  a  proposal  to  begin  by  excluding  all  the  contest- 
ants till  the  House  should  have  appointed  certain  designated 
persons  as  temporary  officers  ;  and  then  to  make  it  the  first 
business  to  decide  the  contested  cases,  no  man  being  allowed  to 

1  For  general  accounts  of  the  Ohio  session  of  1848-49,  see  A.  G.  Riddle, 
in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  VI.,  341  seq.,  and  in  Republic,  IV.,  179 
(1875)  ;  N.  S.  Townshend,  in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  VI.,  623  ;  D.  J. 
Ryan,  History  of  Ohio,  144  seq.;  Ohio  Standard,  Dec.  7,  i848-Feb.  28,  1849. 


1 64  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

vote  on  his  own  case.  To  this  proposition  the  Democrats 
agreed  ;  but  the  Whigs  were  unwilling  by  any  such  arrange- 
ment to  admit  even  temporarily  the  Democratic  Representatives 
from  Hamilton  County  to  whom  the  clerk  had  illegally  given 
certificates,  and  hence  refused  to  adopt  it.  Some  days  passed  in 
bitter  wrangling,  until  Riddle  brought  forward  a  second  plan 
much  like  Townshend's;  and  after  nearly  three  weeks  of  un- 
seemly division  the  Houses  finally  came  together  on  the  basis 
thus  suggested. 

So  far  the  Free  Soilers  had  acted  successfully  and  skilfully; 
but  meanwhile  trouble  was  brewing.  In  anticipation  of  the 
success  of  their  scheme  for  organization,  they  had  held  a  caucus 
to  determine  their  action  in  regard  to  offices.  "  There  was 
present,"  says  a  survivor,  "  a  gentleman  of  large  political  ex- 
perience, although  not  a  member  of  either  House,  who  coun- 
selled perfect  unity  of  action."  1  This  may  have  been  E.  S. 
Hamlin,  formerly  a  Whig  Congressman,  J.  A.  Briggs  of  Cleve- 
land, or,  less  likely,  S.  P.  Chase,  all  of  whom  were  in  Columbus 
at  the  time ;  but,  whoever  it  was,  his  advice  was  not  conclusive. 
Two  of  the  Free  Soilers,  Morse  and  Townshend,  both  elected 
independently,  and  the  latter  a  Liberty  man  since  1841,  were 
not  willing  to  pledge  themselves  to  follow  the  caucus,  because 
they  felt  strong  suspicions  of  the  other  Western  Reserve  mem- 
bers, on  the  ground  that  they  had  too  recently  become  mem- 
bers of  the  Whig  party  to  act  impartially.  The  results  were 
hard  words  and  a  split,  Morse  and  Townshend  ceasing  to  con- 
sult with  the  others.  Nevertheless,  with  the  hope  of  conciliat- 
ing the  two  recusants,  the  Free  Soil  caucus  planned  to  nominate 
Townshend  for  Speaker  and  Mathews  for  clerk;  but  on  the 
day  of  the  election  Townshend  declined,  and  Johnson,  a  Free 
Soil  Whig,  was  nominated  in  his  place,  and  the  Whig  caucus 
also  designated  him. 

In  fact,  two  distinct  intrigues  had  begun  between  the  separate 
factions  of  the  Free  Soilers  and  the  old  parties.  Riddle,  Lee,  and 
the  other  ex-Whigs  had  entered  into  a  "deal"  with  the  Taylor 
men  in  regard  to  the  offices,  hoping  to  get  their  support  later 
in  the  one  overshadowing  event  of  the  session,  the  election  of  a 

1  N.  S.  Townshend,  in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  VI.,  626. 


TWO  SEPARATE  FREE  SOIL  INTRIGUES.  165 

United  States  Senator  to  succeed  William  Allen.  On  the  other 
hand,  Morse  and  Townshend,  with  the  active  assistance  of  S.  P. 
Chase,  and  of  E.  S.  Hamlin,  the  editor  of  the  Ohio  Standard, 
had,  with  the  same  purpose  in  view,  begun  negotiations  with  the 
Democrats.1  Chase's  Democratic  leanings,  continually  growing 
in  strength  since  1845,  had  now  reached  such  a  point  that  he  felt 
himself  in  all  essentials  a  member  of  the  national  Democratic 
party,  and  held  firmly  the  conviction  that  in  that  party  lay  the 
hope  for  anti-slavery  action.  In  his  eyes  the  Free  Soil  party 
was  as  "  Democratic  "  as  the  Old  Hunkers  themselves.  There 
was  in  his  mind  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  Democratic  view 
in  the  Hamilton  County  case,  as  in  all  other  matters,  was  cor- 
rect; and  to  this  opinion  he  soon  brought  Hamlin,  Morse,  and 
Townshend,  although,  by  the  testimony  of  many  persons, 
Townshend  had  declared  in  1848  that  the  Whig  statute  was 
constitutional.2 

The  first  inkling  of  the  truth  in  regard  to  the  position  of 
Townshend  and  Morse  came  to  the  other  six  Free  Soilers  when, 
immediately  after  temporary  organization,  the  House,  accord- 
ing to  programme,  voted  upon  the  Hamilton  County  contest. 
Townshend  voted  for  the  admission  of  the  Democrats,  and  had 
Morse  done  likewise  they  would  have  been  admitted.  To  the 
surprise  of  both  parties,  the  result  was  a  tie,  35-35.  The  Demo- 
crats, who  had  been  led  by  Chase  to  think  that  the  two  inde- 
pendent Free  Soilers  would  vote  with  them,  were  furiously 
angry;  but  Chase's  efforts  soothed  them.3  The  other  six  Free 
Soilers,  on  their  part,  and  the  Whigs  also,  scented  mischief. 
"It  is  a  question  upon  which  men  may  and  do  honestly  dif- 
fer," wrote  J.  A.  Briggs  to  the  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  "  but 
there  are  strange  rumors."  4 

The  next  day  came  a  second  surprise.  Townshend  and 
Morse,  in  the  election  of  Speaker,  voted  for  Breslin,  the  Demo- 
cratic nominee,  electing  him  over  Johnson,  the  "  regular  "  Free 

1  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  329.     See  entries  in  Chase's  diary,  Jan. 
I  and  2,  1849. 

2  True  Democrat,  April  4,  1849. 

8  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  330  ;  Chase's  diary,  Jan.  2,  1849. 
4  True  Democrat,  Jan.  6,  1848. 


1 66  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

Soil  and  Whig  candidate,  by  a  vote  of  36  to  34.  Stanley 
Mathews,  like  Townshend  a  former  Liberty  man  and  a  personal 
friend  of  Chase,  was  then  by  Democratic  votes  elected  clerk 
over  Swift,  the  Free  Soil  and  Whig  nominee.  It  was  evident 
that  Townshend  and  Morse  held  the  power  in  their  own  hands, 
and  were  using  it  without  regard  to  the  wishes  of  the  other  six 
Free  Soilers.  When  this  fact  became  generally  known,  anti- 
slavery  men  in  all  parts  of  the  State  began  to  take  sides.  In 
Cincinnati,  the  home  of  Chase  and  Mathews,  they  congratulated 
themselves  on  the  successful  course  of  matters  in  the  legislature, 
and  applauded  Townshend  and  Morse  ;  but  on  the  Western 
Reserve,  where  a  majority  of  Free  Soilers  had  been  Whigs,  and 
where  Democratic  success  was  utterly  hateful,  there  was  an  out- 
break of  dismay  and  distrust.  "  We  don't  see  how  they  can  jus- 
tify their  conduct/'  said  the  True  Democrat;  "we  shall  not 
undertake  to  do  it  for  them."  "  There  is  a  good  deal  of  un- 
pleasant feeling  here,"  wrote  J.  A.  Briggs  from  Columbus.  "We 
are  afraid  that  the  ambition  of  some  individual  for  a  seat  in  the 
Senate  will  lead  Free  Soilers  to  pander  to  Loco-focoism." x 
This  shaft  pointed  directly  at  Chase,  whose  activity  in  arranging 
matters  could  not  pass  unnoticed.  Townshend,  on  his  part, 
wrote  a  defiant  letter.  It  seems  that  some  Free  Soiler  had  ap- 
proached him  with  the  proposal  that,  if  he  were  elected  Speaker, 
he  should  resign  to  let  in  a  Whig.  This  he  construed  as  an 
insult,  and  so  voted  for  Breslin  to  "  save  the  Free  Soil  party 
from  being  dissolved  in  Whiggery."  "  The  whole  charge  of 
bargain  and  sale  amounts  to  this,"  he  concluded,  "  that  Messrs. 
Chase,  Hamlin,  Morse,  and  myself  were  not  willing  to  be  sponged 
up  and  identified  with  Whiggery."  2  Naturally,  such  a  letter  as 
this  failed  to  help  matters,  and  by  the  second  week  of  January  the 
split  between  the  two  and  the  six  was  hopeless.  In  the  Senate, 
meanwhile,  to  keep  up  the  excitement,  an  outbreak  occurred 
when  Randall,  the  Free  Soil  Speaker,  announced  the  election  of 
Governor  Ford.  At  this  news  the  Democrats,  who  had  hoped 
to  get  in  Weller,  raved  and  cursed  and  threatened  violence.3 

1  True  Democrat,  Jan.  10,  1849. 

2  Ibid.,  Jan.  19,  1849;  Ohio  Standard,  Jan.  23,  1849. 
8  Ibid.,  Jan.  13,  1849. 


RUPTURE  BETWEEN  FREE  SOILERS.  167 

During  these  days  of  intrigue  and  distrust,  the  first  delegated 
State  Free  Soil  convention  met  at  Columbus.  D.  R.  Tilden,  an 
ex-Whig,  presided;  and  after  a  prolonged  debate,  in  which 
considerable  diversity  of  opinion  was  manifested,  a  platform  was 
adopted  to  define  the  new  party's  position  in  State  affairs.  The 
main  points  emphasized  were,  a  repeal  of  the  Black  laws,  a  pro- 
portional property  tax,  homestead  exemption,  a  ten-hour  law, 
opposition  to  the  chartering  of  corporations  and  to  the  banking 
law,  and  a  demand  for  a  new  constitution,  —  matters  hitherto 
foreign  to  anti-slavery  platforms.  Many  ex-Whigs  from  the 
Western  Reserve,  according  to  a  correspondent  of  Dr.  Bailey, 
"  dissented  from  all  in  the  platform  of  a  Democratic  character 
and  tendency,  and  especially  from  the  last  resolution  which 
contemplated  a  permanent  organization.  Only  one,  however, 
declared  openly  that  he  could  not  act  with  us  as  a  distinct  and 
permanent  party."  1  The  convention  adjourned  without  having 
made  much  impression  on  public  feeling ;  for,  in  view  of  the 
state  of  things  in  the  legislature,  declarations  of  harmony 
counted  for  little. 

Meanwhile  the  course  of  politics  pursued  its  tortuous  way. 
An  election  committee  of  five  was  appointed  by  the  chairman, 
with  Townshend,  the  Free  Soil  Representative,  in  possession  of 
the  casting  vote  ;  it  reported  in  favor  of  the  Democratic  contes- 
tants from  Hamilton  County,  and,  by  the  usual  majority  of  two, 
Pugh  and  Pierce  were  given  the  contested  seats.  Townshend 
and  Morse,  however,  still  held  the  balance  of  power.  The  Whig 
party  all  over  the  State  was  by  this  time  fairly  maddened  by 
these  continual  Democratic  successes,  and  raised  a  chorus  of  vitu- 
peration against  Townshend,  Morse,  and  especially  Chase,  who 
by  common  consent  was  accused  of  having  come  to  Columbus 
during  the  session  with  the  sole  purpose  of  lobbying  for  his  own 
election  as  Senator.  The  Democratic  press  said  little;  and 
Chase's  only  defence  was  found  in  the  Cincinnati  Globe,  for- 
merly edited  by  Stanley  Mathews,  who,  it  will  be  remembered, 
had  been  elected  clerk  by  the  "  deal " ;  in  the  Washington 
National  Era,  whose  editor,  Dr.  Bailey,  was  one  of  Chase's 
warmest  admirers,  and  who  gained  his  knowledge  of  the  pro- 
1  True  Democrat,  Jan.  4,  1849;  National  Era %  Jan.  18,  1849. 


1 68  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

ceedings  at  Columbus  mostly  from  Chase  himself;  and  in  one 
or  two  other  papers.  These  journals  claimed  that  Townshend 
and  Morse  were  the  only  independent  men  in  the  legisla- 
ture ;  that  the  Whig  Free  Soilers  pressed  their  views  in  caucus 
"  with  an  earnestness  bordering  on  dictation  "  ;  that  they  were 
"  mere  nominal  Free  Soil  men  whose  object  appeared  to  be  to 
make  the  Free  Soil  organization  subservient  to  the  success  of 
mere  Whig  measures  and  ideas  " ;  and  that,  if  Townshend  and 
Morse  were  not  sustained,  "  they  must  not  be  surprised  to  see 
the  Free  Soil  organization  resolve  itself  into  its  original  ele- 
ments." As  to  Chase,  they  said  that  the  insinuation  of  a  bar- 
gain for  the  Senatorship  was  "  purely  gratuitous  and  utterly 
false,"  that  "  the  political  position  of  Mr.  Chase  could  have  been 
suggested  by  no  other  considerations  than  the  most  disinterested 
convictions  of  duty."  l  "  It  is  true,"  said  the  Ohio  Standard, 
edited  by  E.  S.  Hatnlin,  "  that  Mr.  Chase,  by  the  solicitations 
of  many  Free  Soilers,  is  a  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate.  He  has  a  right  to  be  a  candidate  for  that  or  any  other 
office,  and  the  fact  that  he  is  such  is  no  evidence  that  he  is  for 
selling  out  the  party."  2  Having  arranged  the  organization  of 
the  House  and  the  settlement  of  the  Hamilton  County  case, 
Chase's  "  duty"  no  longer  kept  him  at  Columbus.  He  returned 
to  Cincinnati,  but  continued  in  daily  communication  with  his 
friends. 

Morse  now  brought  forward  a  bill  to  repeal  the  Black  Laws, 
which  on  January  30  passed  the  legislature  as  follows :  Senate, 
24-1 1  ;  House,  56-10.  Thus  the  "  blot  on  the  statute  book," 
the  object  of  anti-slavery  attack  for  fourteen  years,  was  finally 
removed  by  a  bargain  with  the  Democrats.  In  view  of  the  large 
majorities,  it  was  claimed  by  the  Whig  Free  Soilers  that  no  bar- 
gain was  needed,  and  that  Townshend  and  Morse  could  derive  no 
credit  from  the  repeal ;  but  this  claim  seems  not  very  plausible.3 
The  prevailing  sentiment  among  Democrats  was  so  strongly 
against  repeal,  that  without  a  bargain  it  seems  doubtful  whether 
enough  of  them  would  have  voted  with  the  anti-slavery  Whigs 
and  Free  Soilers  to  carry  the  measure.  As  it  was,  they  voted 

1  Cincinnati  Globe,  Jan.  24,  1849.  2  Feb.  2,  1849. 

2  A.  G.  Riddle,  in  Republic,  IV.,  183  (1875). 


REPEAL   OF  THE  BLACK  LAWS.  169 

only  under  severe  party  pressure.  One  of  them,  together  with 
a  Whig,  tried  by  hiding  to  dodge  the  vote,  and  had  to  be 
dragged  in  by  the  sergeant-at-arms  amidst  the  ironical  applause 
of  the  Assembly  Chamber.1 

The  legislature  was  next  obliged  to  face  the  questions  of  a 
choice  of  a  Senator  and  two  State  judges.  The  Whig  Free 
Soilers  had  been  from  an  early  date  hoping  to  elect  their  idol 
Giddings  to  the  Senate,  while  the  Cincinnati  Globe  and  the  Na- 
tional Era  had  been  urging  Chase.  As  early  as  October  26, 
1848,  Dr.  Bailey  in  the  National  Era  suggested  Chase  as  "  a  man 
uniting  in  an  eminent  degree  fitness  for  Senatorial  office,  trust- 
worthiness arid  availability."  The  Cincinnati  Globe  preferred 
him  to  Giddings,  saying:  "  Mr.  Giddings'  peculiar  sphere  of 
usefulness  and  distinction  is  on  the  floor  of  the  American  Com- 
mons. The  omission  to  select  him  for  the  present  vacancy 
should  be  regarded  as  the  best  tribute  to  his  character  and 
position.  .  .  .  We  respectfully  present  the  name  of  S.  P.  Chase 
as  a  worthy  and  capable  candidate."  2  The  True  Democrat,  on 
the  other  hand,  said:  "The  Free  Soil  men  will  present  J.  R. 
Giddings  as  their  candidate.  .  .  .  S.  P.  Chase  has  been  named. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Chase  is  a  young  man  and  high  honors  yet  await  him. 
Work  and  wait  is  a  good  motto."  3 

By  January,  1849,  it  was  perfectly  well  understood  that  the 
choice  lay  between  these  two,  and  feeling  ran  constantly  higher. 
Chase,  anxiously  watching  affairs  from  Cincinnati,  wrote  numer- 
ous letters  to  Dr.  Bailey,  who  in  Chase's  interest  urged  upon 
Giddings  to  use  his  influence  to  calm  the  excitement  of  his 
followers.  Bailey  wrote  to  Chase  :  "  He  is  modestly  ambitious, 
would  like  to  be  U.  S.  Senator  ...  if  the  Free  Soil  men  will 
unite  on  him.  If  they  cannot  or  will  not  ...  he  says  that  you 
and  you  alone,  by  all  means,  are  the  man.  I  told  him  he  ought 
to  write  to  one  of  his  Free  Soil  friends  in  the  legislature."  4 
Giddings  at  once  wrote  to  Randall,  Townshend,  and  others, 
urging  them  to  combine  on  Chase  if  he  himself  were  out  of  the 
question.  A  little  later,  finding  the  breach  still  unhealed,  Chase 

1  Cincinnati  Globe,  Feb.  7,  1849.  *  Ibid. 

8  Jan.  24,  1849. 

4  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  Jan.  20,  1849.     Chase  MSS. 


1 70  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

wrote  directly  to  Giddings,  practically  asking  him  to  withdraw. 
No  sooner  was  the  letter  gone  than  he  repented,  and  wrote  to 
his  friend  Hamlin  at  Columbus :  "  I  said  to  him  that  he  being 
in  Congress,  and  I  out,  the  interests  of  the  cause  required  my 
election  or  that  of  some  other  reliable  man  rather  than  his.  I 
may  be  wrong  in  this,  misled  perhaps  by  the  '  ambition  '  so  freely 
ascribed  to  me.  If  so,  let  Giddings  be  chosen,  I  shall  not  com- 
plain. I  cannot  help  thinking,  however,  that  the  election  of  one 
who  has  been  longer  convinced  of  the  necessity  and  is  more 
thoroughly  identified  with  the  policy,  of  a  distinct  and  perma- 
nent free  Democratic  organization,  will  do  the  cause  and  the 
friends  of  the  cause  more  good."  1  Naturally,  Chase's  "  ambi- 
tion "  did  not  prevent  his  friends  from  continuing  to  work  hard 
in  his  interest,  so  long  as  such  excellent  reasons  were  furnished. 
Moreover,  Giddings's  modesty  led  him  to  agree  with  Chase  as 
to  the  advisability  of  remaining  in  the  House.  He  wrote  in  his 
journal,  January  24 :  "  By  the  mail  of  this  evening  I  received 
letters  from  Columbus  which  speak  cheerfully  of  my  prospects 
for  the  Senate.  One  from  Dr.  Townshend  gives  me  some  little 
hope  of  election,  for  which  however  I  do  not  feel  anxious,  as  I 
think  I  can  do  more  good  in  the  House,  where  I  have  established 
an  influence,  than  I  can  in  the  Senate,  where  I  should  meet  with 
intellects  of  a  higher  order, —  men  of  nerve,  experience,  and  of 
far  greater  intelligence.  But  the  moral  effect  of  my  election 
would  be  great,  and  on  that  account  I  feel  a  desire  to  succeed 
to  that  office."  2 

No  combination  could  be  formed  for  Giddings.  During  the 
month  of  January  the  ex-Whig  Free  Soil  men  made  persistent 
but  vain  efforts  to  get  all  the  Taylor  men  to  support  him.  Though 
a  majority  of  the  Whig  caucus  were  willing,  the  members  from 
Cuyahoga  County  could  not  be  induced  to  condone  his  "  apos- 
tasy," 3  and  the  attempt  finally  had  to  be  given  up.  "  For  some 
time  past,"  said  the  Standard,  "  the  Whigs  have  been  urged  to 
consent  to  vote  for  Giddings  .  .  .  but  they  have  steadily  refused. 
Why?  They  were  afraid  that  by  so  doing  they  would  render 

1  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  Jan.  28,  1849. 

2  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  ofj.  R.  Giddings,  267. 
*  Ibid. 


DEMOCRATS  ELECT  CHASE  SENATOR.  i;i 

themselves  offensive  to  the  incoming  administration.  On  all 
questions  of  National  policy  they  knew  him  to  be  a  Whig.  But 
if  elected  he  would  not  sustain  the  administration  in  its  pro- 
slavery  course.  This  they  knew,  and  because  of  this  he  was 
defeated."  l 

The  way,  then,  seemed  clear  for  the  ex-Whig  Free  Soil 
members  to  follow  Giddings's  advice  by  uniting  on  Chase;  but 
even  with  Giddings  out  of  the  race  they  would  try  some  other 
man  rather  than  unite  with  Townshend  and  Morse.  The  Whig 
caucus  offered  to  support  Judge  McLean,  but  he  telegraphed 
his  refusal.2  At  the  last  minute  an  effort  was  made  to  unite  on 
J.  C.  Vaughn,  but  it  failed,  and  the  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers  went 
into  the  senatorial  convention  with  their  original  candidates, 
Evving  and  Giddings. 

Townshend,  Morse,  and  Hamlin  as  Chase's  agent,  had  taken 
an  impartial  course :  they  had  offered  to  support  Giddings  for 
Senator  and  to  vote  for  Whig  nominees  for  judges,  or  to  support 
Chase  and  vote  for  Democratic  caucus  candidates  for  the  judge- 
ships.  Townshend's  belief  that  the  Whigs,  anxious  to  save  what 
they  could  from  the  wreck  of  the  session,  would  all  accept  the 
offer,  proved  ill  founded.  Eventually  the  Democrats  proved  more 
complaisant,  as  they  had  every  reason  to  be,  and  an  arrange- 
ment on  the  basis  of  Townshend's  offer  was  perfected.  When 
the  fateful  day  came,  the  result  of  the  balloting  showed  Chase 
to  be  elected  by  the  fifty-three  Democrats  with  Townshend  and 
Morse,  the  other  Free  Soilers  voting  to  the  last  for  Giddings, 
and  the  Whigs,  except  three,  adhering  grimly  to  Ewing.3  One 

1  Ohio  Standard,  Feb.  23,  1849. 

2  Notes  of  an  interview  with  E.  S.  Hamlin,  taken  by  Albert  Bushnell 
Hart ;   see  also  National  Era,  Feb.  22,  1849. 

8  The  four  ballots  ran  as  follows :  — 

I.  II.  III.  IV. 

Chase 14  S2  55  55 

Ewing 41  41  39  39 

Giddings 9  8  9  n 

Vaughn —  2  I 

Allen 27  i 

Scattering 4 

Blank n  4  2 

The  third  ballot  was  void,  since  there  was  one  vote  too  many. 


172  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

of  the  Whig  Free  Soilers,  A.  G.  Riddle,  who  throughout  the 
session  had  shown  greater  independence  than  his  colleagues, 
stood  ready  to  vote  for  Chase  if  his  support  should  be  necessary 
to  secure  his  election ;  but  the  others  would  sooner  have  seen 
even  a  pro-slavery  man  go  in.  The  "  deal "  was  then  consum- 
mated by  the  election,  as  judges,  of  R.  P.  Spaulding  and  W.  B. 
Caldwell,  Democrats,  over  Edward  Wade  and  B.  S.  Cowen,  the 
Free  Soil  caucus  nominees;  and  the  legislature  soon  adjourned, 
after  one  of  the  most  important  sessions  in  the  history  of  the 
State. 

The  repeal  of  the  Black  Laws  and  the  election  of  an  anti-slavery 
Senator  met  with  approbation  on  every  side,  even  from  Free 
Soil  Whigs,  who  loathed  from  the  bottom  of  their  souls  the 
means  by  which  these  results  had  been  accomplished.  "  No 
event  has  given  us  more  satisfaction  than  the  election  of  Mr. 
Chase,"  said  the  Western  Citizen,  although  it  admitted  that 
Chase's  "  conservatism "  had  caused  "  many  of  his  friends 
to  suspect  his  unwavering  constancy  to  the  anti-slavery  move- 
ment." 1  The  True  Democrat,  swallowing  its  wrath,  said  :  "  The 
election  of  Mr.  Chase  will  be  gratifying  to  the  Free  Soil  men  of 
the  country.  .  .  The  slave  propagandists  will  find  him  a  match 
for  the  strongest."  2  "  Hurrah  for  Ohio  !  "  cried  the  Western  Re- 
serve Chronicle.  "  Our  first  choice  has  been  Mr.  Giddings.  We 
preferred  his  election  not  because  we  thought  him  the  best  man, 
.  .  .  but  out  of  personal  preference.  .  .  .  Our  next  choice  was 
Mr.  Chase.  We  certainly  have  no  regrets."  3  The  Ashtabula 
Sentinel  called  the  election  of  Chase  "  a  triumph  of  principle," 
and  the  National  Era  and  the  Cincinnati  Globe,  which  had  all 
along  supported  him,  were  of  course  delighted. 

On  Tovvnshend  and  Morse,  however,  and  in  a  less  degree  on 
Mathews  and  Hamlin,  fell  condemnation  more  violent  than  had 
been  heard  since  the  days  of  Birney  and  the  Garland  forgery. 
They  were  accused  of  bargaining  away  their  principles  for  office, 
and  of  changing  front  on  the  Hamilton  County  question  for  the 
sake  of  obtaining  Democratic  votes.  An  extract  from  the 
Cleveland  Herald  illustrates  the  amenities  of  the  Whig  papers.4 

1  Feb.  27,  1849.  2  Feb.  24,  1849.  8  FeD-  28,  1849. 

4  "  Of  all  wretches  known  in  the  records  of  infamy  none  can  compare 


WRATH  OF  WESTERN  RESERVE.  1/3 

What  cut  the  Western  Reserve  Free  Soilers  to  the  heart  was  the 
vote  of  Townshend  and  Morse  for  Spaulding  and  against  Ed- 
ward Wade,  on  the  ground,  as  E.  S.  Hamlin  said,  that  "  after 
obtaining  the  Senator  the  Free  Soilers  could  not  well  obtain  the 
Supreme  judges."  "  Out  upon  such  ethics,  away  with  such 
hypocrisy !  "  cried  the  True  Democrat ;  "  it  smells  of  corrup- 
tion." l  Even  the  mild  Western  Reserve  Chronicle,  while  approv- 
ing the  election  of  Chase,  added:  "We  do  not  hesitate  to 
condemn  in  strong  terms  the  election  of  Mr.  Spaulding."  2  It 
would  be  easy  to  fill  pages  with  the  laments  and  bitter  male- 
dictions of  the  ex-Whig  Free  Soilers ;  but  perhaps  the  recent 
statement  of  one  of  the  leading  participants  in  the  election  shows 
how  deep  an  impression  this  incident  made  upon  the  minds  of 
Ohio  Whigs :  "  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  morality  or  the 
expediency  of  the  course  pursued,  no  doubt  can  exist  of  its 
effect  upon  Mr.  Chase  and  his  career.  It  lost  to  him  at  once 
and  forever  the  confidence  of  every  Whig  of  middle  age  in  Ohio. 
Its  shadow,  never  wholly  dispelled,  always  fell  upon  him  and 
hovered  near  and  darkened  his  pathway  at  the  critical  places  in 
his  political  after  life."  3 

Just  what  verdict  to  pronounce  on  this  memorable  contest  is 
a  question  hard  to  decide.  Judged  by  the  results,  it  was  a  great 
success  and  an  equally  great  failure,  for,  though  it  elected  an  anti- 
slavery  Senator  to  stand  beside  John  P.  Hale,  it  nearly  ruined 
the  Ohio  Free  Soil  Party.  A  bargain  of  some  sort,  however, 
was  inevitable ;  and  to  condemn  Townshend  and  Morse,  as  the 
other  Free  Soilers  did,  because  they  co-operated  with  the  Demo- 
crats, was  really  absurd,  though  it  seems  that  the  same  end 
might  have  been  attained  with  less  friction,  and  consequently 

with  this  black-hearted  miscreant  from  Lorain  County.  Of  Morse  I  say 
little.  He  is  so  far  below  the  heathen  in  everything  that  goes  to  make  a 
man  that  time  spent  over  him  would  be  poorly  appropriated.  He  is  more 
fool  than  knave,  and  a  good  deal  of  both.  It  would  require  an  act  of  om- 
nipotence to  bring  Townshend  up  to  the  level  of  a  Judas  Iscariot,  or  a  Bene- 
dict Arnold  ...  or  Morse  to  the  level  of  a  fool.  The  Free  Soil  party  is  as 
badly  treated  by  the  traitors  as  Jesus  Christ  by  Judas  Iscariot  or  the  Ameri- 
can army  by  Benedict  Arnold."  Quoted  in  True  Democrat,  Feb.  I,  1849. 

1  Ibid.,  March  i,  1849.  2  Feb.  28,  1849. 

8  A.  G.  Riddle,  in  Republic,  IV.,  183  (1875). 


174  OHIO  SENATORIAL   CONTEST. 

with  less  heart-burning.  The  real  burden  of  the  complaint 
was  not  that  a  bargain  was  in  itself  blameworthy.  Most  of 
the  Whigs  would  have  supported  Giddings  in  return  for  the 
judgeships.  The  real  crime  was  coalition  with  the  "  Loco-focos." 
Chase,  Hamlin,  Townshend,  and  Morse,  when  the  immediate 
results  of  their  operations  are  considered,  accomplished  all  that 
could  have  been  done  in  the  repeal  of  the  Black  Laws  and  the 
election  of  an  anti-slavery  Senator.  For  Free  Soilers  to  vote 
against  Edward  Wade  was  not  agreeable ;  but,  from  the  nature 
of  things,  such  a  bargain  must  have  a  seamy  side,  and  a  Whig 
arrangement  would  undoubtedly  have  presented  some  similar 
requirement.  We  may,  then,  at  the  outset  dismiss  all  talk  of 
"  bargain  and  corruption,"  as  entirely  beside  the  mark.  The 
mistake  made  by  Townshend  and  Morse  lay  in  their  defiant 
attitude,  taken  up  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  struggle.  The 
ex- Whig  Free  Soilers  were  no  more  prejudiced  in  favor  of  their 
old  companions  than  Chase  was  in  favor  of  the  Democrats.  In 
bolting  from  the  Free  Soil  caucus,  Townshend  and  Morse  made 
a  tactical  mistake;  for  it  threw  on  them,  as  the  minority  of  a 
party,  the  burden  of  proving  that  they  were  right,  and  it  need- 
lessly enraged  both  their  fellow  Free  Soilers  and  the  regular 
Whigs.1 

Precisely  what  part  Chase  played  in  the  matter  is  not  easy  to 
make  out.  He  seems  not  to  have  thrust  himself  into  affairs, 
but  when  once  involved  he  took  a  leading  part  in  arranging  the 
early  stages  of  the  bargain.  That  his  planning,  as  the  Whigs 
asserted,  went  so  far  as  to  include  his  own  nomination  for 
Senator,  is  almost  certainly  untrue.  There  is  no  trace  of  this 
aim  in  his  private  letters  to  Hamlin,  his  confidential  friend  at 
Columbus;  and  the  men  connected  with  him  at  the  time, 
especially  Mathews,  Hamlin,  and  Townshend,  have  all  repeat- 
edly said  that  he  did  nothing  in  his  own  favor.  Nevertheless, 
his  nomination  was  only  the  logical  working  out  of  the  bargain ; 
for  Chase  and  Hamlin  well  knew  that  if  the  Democrats  were  to 
unite  with  the  Free  Soilers  in  voting  for  a  Senator,  Chase  and  no- 
body else  would  be  the  man.  The  Cincinnati  Globe,  in  answer 

1  See  a  speech  of  Townshend  in  the  Ohio  Legislature,  reprinted  in  the 
National  Era,  March  22,  1849. 


PART  PLAYED  BY  CHASE.  1 75 

to  Chase's  critics,  said :  "  His  intercourse  with  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  and  others  was  characterized  by  a  frankness 
which  no  one  should  misconstrue  and  a  delicacy  which  a  fair 
opponent  cannot  fail  to  appreciate." l  Chase  was  frank  in  one 
sense,  in  that  he  told  no  lies ;  but  between  his  guardedly  correct 
statements  and  the  open  frankness  of  a  man  like  Giddings  lay  a 
world  of  difference.  At  this  juncture  Chase  minded  his  own 
business  strictly,  made  no  public  appearances,  gave  the  soundest 
advice  to  Townshend  and  Morse,  wrote  the  most  unimpeachable 
letters  to  the  National  Era  about  "  conscientious  action,"  "  re- 
gard for  the  cause  of  liberty,"  etc.,  and,  while  so  doing,  with  the 
utmost  skill  he  paved  the  way  for  his  own  advancement.  His 
whole  connection  with  the  affair,  his  dealings  with  Townshend 
and  Morse,  his  intense  anxiety  to  settle  the  Hamilton  County 
case  in  favor  of  the  Democrats,  and  especially  his  action  toward 
Giddings,  leave  an  unpleasant  impression.  One  cannot  point  to 
a  single  questionable  act  on  his  part ;  but  the  feeling  remains 
that,  in  this  emergency,  a  man  like  Lewis  or  Giddings  would 
have  paid  less  attention  to  the  settlement  of  the  Hamilton 
County  snarl  and  the  rights  of  the  Democrats,  and  more  to  the 
unification  of  the  Free  Soil  party. 

1  Jan.  24,  1849. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

COLLAPSE   OF   THE    FREE    SOIL   PARTY   IN   THE   THREE 
OHIO   RIVER   STATES. 

1849-1850. 

So  great  was  the  bitterness  stirred  up  among  Free  Soilers  by 
the  circumstances  of  Chase's  election,  that  the  prospect  for  har- 
monious  action  in  the  campaign  of  1849  seemed  gloomy.  The 
whole  Western  Reserve  was  fuming  over  the  Democratic  suc- 
cesses, Whigs  were  cursing,  and  Democratic  legislators  were 
trying  to  explain  to  irate  constituents  how  and  why  they  came  to 
vote  against  the  Black  Laws  and  for  Chase.  In  the  midst  of  the 
turmoil,  Giddings  exerted  himself  to  bring  about  peace.  He 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  very  glad  to  get  the  senatorship, 
and  he  had  fairly  earned  promotion  by  ten  arduous  years  of 
single-handed  fighting;  but  he  showed  no  signs  of  irritation. 
"  From  the  bitter  attacks  made  on  Messrs.  Morse  and  Towns- 
hend  for  their  support  of  Mr.  Chase,  you  may  suppose,"  he 
generously  wrote  to  Sumner,  "  that  I  am  dissatisfied  with  them. 
Such  is  not  the  case.  They  both  acted  by  my  advice  -in  that 
election.  ...  I  felt  neither  mortification  nor  disappointment  at 
his  success  over  me.  On  the  contrary,  I  regarded  his  election 
as  a  great  victory." 1  "  Mr.  Chase,"  he  wrote  in  a  later  letter, 
"  is  an  able  man,  and  will  prove  an  able  Senator  " ;  but,  putting 
his  finger  on  the  weak  spot,  he  added,  "  he  lacks  a  knowledge 
of  popular  sentiment  and  is  not  qualified  to  lead  a  party."2 

With  this  feeling,  Giddings,  through  his  organ,  the  Ashtabula 
Sentinel,  worked  for  harmony,  and  urged  that  the  matter  might 
drop,  that  recriminations  might  cease,  and  bygones  be  by- 

1  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  off.  R.  Giddings,  267. 

2  Giddings  to  Sumner,  Oct.  19,  1849:  Sumner  MSS. 


HARMONY  RESTORED  IN  OHIO.  1 77 

gones.1  Such  magnanimity  was  beyond  the  attainment  of  most 
Ohio  Free  Soil  men;  and  consequently  the  quarrel  went  on 
until  .a  vigorous  effort  to  allay  enmities  was  made  at  a  conven- 
tion for  the  Western  Reserve,  which  met  on  May  2,  1848,  at 
Cleveland.  To  symbolize  reconciliation,  Edward  Wade,  Morse, 
Townshend,  and  others  were  assigned  dignities  and  were  placed 
together  on  committees.  A  series  of  resolutions,  reported  by 
Giddings  with  the  design  of  setting  affairs  to  rights,  urged  an 
"  early,  efficient,  and  thorough  party  organization ;  "  and  said 
that  "the  existing  controversy  relative  to  the  law  dividing 
Hamilton  County  and  all  other  questions  of  a  mere  partisan 
or  temporary  nature  are  of  minor  importance  and  ought  not 
to  be  the  subjects  of  strife  or  tests  of  fidelity  with  men  pledged 
to  the  great  principle  of  Human  Freedom." 2  Conciliatory 
speeches  were  made  by  Giddings,  Riddle,  Vaughn,  and  Towns- 
hend ;  and  for  the  time  being  it  seemed  as  if,  in  the  words  of 
the  True  Democrat,  "the  spirit  of  discord  was  allayed,  and 
mutual  confidence  was  restored."  3 

This  meeting,  at  the  suggestion  of  Indiana  Free  Soilers,  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  call  a  convention  at  Cleveland  to  cele- 
brate the  Ordinance  of  1787,  in  other  words,  the  Wilmot 
Proviso.  This  step  was  presently  taken,  and  on  July  12,  1849, 
the  convention  met,  with  a  large  attendance.  The  time  of  the 
opening  exercises  was  announced  to  the  assembled  crowd  by 
the  firing  of  cannon.  Could  Thomas  Morris  have  returned  to 
earth,  he  would  undoubtedly  have  felt  that  time  brings  its  re- 
venges ;  for  in  the  president's  chair  sat  the  very  man  who  ten 
years  before  had  supplanted  him  in  the  senatorship,  the  Hon- 
orable ex- Senator,  Benjamin  Tappan.  With  him  were  five 
vice-presidents,  one  from  each  of  the  States  preserved  for  free- 
dom by  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  Addresses  were  made  by  Ells- 
worth of  Indiana,  Austin  Willey  of  Maine,  Giddings,  Taylor  of 
the  Cincinnati  Globe,  and,  most  eloquent  of  all,  John  Van  Buren. 
In  addition,  Bibb,  the  fugitive  slave,  who  for  several  years  had 
been  prominent  in  Michigan  anti-slavery  work,  made  a  speech, 
as  did  also  Judge  Spaulding,  whose  election  by  Townshend  and 

1  Cincinnati  Globe,  March  28,  1849. 

2  National  Era,  May  17,  1849.  8  Quoted  ibid. 

12 


178  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

Morse  had  caused  ex-Whig  Free  Sellers  to  wince.  Letters  were 
received  from  a  dozen  eminent  men,  including  Martin  Van 
Buren,  Henry  Clay,  J.  A.  Dix,  J.  G.  Palfrey,  Horace  Mann, 
C.  F.  Adams,  Charles  Sumner,  Lewis  Tappan,  and  C.  M.  Clay; 
and  a  series  of  strong  resolutions  was  adopted  reiterating  the 
Buffalo  platform.1 

These  two  peace-making  conventions  seemed,  for  the  mo- 
ment, to  have  done  something  to  reunite  anti-slavery  men,  and 
to  put  the  Ohio  third  party  on  its  feet;  but,  as  the  summer 
advanced  and  organization  began,  appeared  a  tendency  —  new, 
and,  for  Ohio,  abnormal  —  toward  Free  Soil  and  Democratic 
coalition.  Why  should  the  Free  Soilers  coalesce  at  all?  And, 
above  all,  why  should  they  seek  allies  among  Cass  Democrats, 
among  those  whose  leaders  at  Washington  were  slave-holders 
and  advocates  of  slavery  extension?  This  paradox  demands 
explanation. 

In  the  first  place,  the  fundamental  reason  why  the  Free 
Soilers  coalesced  and  the  Liberty  men  did  not,  was  that  the 
new  party  was  led  to  a  considerable  extent  by  politicians,  with 
whom  immediate  gains  were  of  much  more  relative  consequence 
than  had  been  the  case  with  the  philanthropists  of  the  Liberty 
party.  The  New  York  Barnburners,  the  Western  Reserve 
Whigs,  the  Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin  Free  Democrats 
wanted,  if  possible,  to  make  their  influence  felt  in  every  elec- 
tion ;  and  if  any  party  or  body  of  men  were  willing  to  unite 
with  them  on  a  common  platform,  or  on  common  candidates, 
so  much  the  better.  Another  reason  why  Free  Soilers  in  Ohio 
and  in  some  other  places  coalesced  with  Democrats  is  found  in 
the  overshadowing  influence  of  the  New  York  Barnburners, 
who  formed  undeniably  the  strongest  single  numerical  element 
of  the  new  party,  and  were  to  a  great  extent  its  founders.  Now, 
it  was  the  boast  of  the  Barnburners  that  they  were  "  regular  " 
Democrats,  and  that  in  voting  for  Van  Buren  they  were  more 
"  regular,"  and  more  "  Democratic,"  than  the  followers  of  Cass. 
The  party  name  adopted  at  Buffalo,  although  seldom  used  in 
1848,  was  the  "Free  Democracy";  and  from  this  fact  an  im- 
pression prevailed,  similar  to  the  belief  held  by  Chase  since 
1  National  Era,  July  26-Aug.  2,  1849. 


FREE  SOILERS  AND  DEMOCRATS  COALESCE.        179 

1845,  that  the  Free  Soil  party  was  essentially  an  offshoot  of 
the  Democratic.  If,  then,  there  were  to  be  any  union,  what 
more  natural  than  that  it  should  come  about  between  the  two 
kinds  of  Democrats?  ] 

In  Ohio,  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  third-party  vote  of  1848 
was  Whig  in  origin ;  yet  we  find  this  idea  of  the  Democratic 
character  of  the  Free  Soilers  very  prevalent.  Its  currency  was 
undoubtedly  increased  by  the  sudden  development  of  an  anti- 
slavery  spirit  in  the  ranks  of  the  Old  Line  Democracy.  Early 
in  1848  the  party  convention  had  adopted  a  Free  Territory 
clause  in  its  platform,  and  its  mouthpieces  after  the  election 
used  language  that  would  have  seemed  extreme  in  a  Birney 
organ  of  1844.  "Rather  than  see  slavery  extended  one  inch, 
beyond  its  present  limits,"  cried  the  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer, 
"  we  would  see  this  Union  rent  asunder !  "  2  Similar  expres- 
sions, hardly  less  violent,  may  be  found  in  the  Mahoning  Index, 
Norwalk  Experiment,  and  in  other  Democratic  papers  in  the 
northern  counties.  It  is  not,  then,  surprising  that,  with  the 
Democratic  press  of  the  North  incessantly  calling  for  a  "  re- 
union," and  the  Barnburners  of  New  York  and  the  Free  Soilers 
of  Vermont  negotiating  terms  of  coalition,  local  conventions  in 
Ohio  began  to  yield  to  the  current.  In  April  a  "  union  Demo- 
cratic "  ticket  was  nominated  in  the  Sandusky  city  election,  and 
the  same  thing  occurred  in  Cleveland  and  Toledo,  to  the  great 
disgust  of  many  ex-Whig  Free  Soilers.  Later,  Portage,  Summit, 
Carroll,  and  Tuscarawas,  Lucas,  and  Henry,  Erie,  Morgan,  and 
Washington,  Montgomery,  Warren,  and  Medina  counties,  all 
saw  Free  Soil  and  Democratic  conventions  unite  on  a  common 
ticket.  In  a  few  places,  such  as  Summit  and  Ashtabula  coun- 
ties, where  the  Whigs  made  an  effort  to  gain  Free  Soil  aid  by 
adopting  its  full  platform,  their  offers  were  laughed  to  scorn. 
Democratic  fusion  swept  nearly  every  county,  even  on  the 
Reserve. 

In  many  places  the  Hamilton  County  question,  for  a  time 
suppressed,   boiled  up   again.     In    Lorain   County,  where  the 
Free  Democratic  convention  renominated  Townshend,  a  minor- 
ity seceded  and  coalesced  with  the  Whigs.    In  Summit  County 
1  See  Cincinnati  Globe,  Jan.  3,  1849.  2  Nov.  17,  1848. 


180  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

the  Whigs  made  an  effort  to  gain  Free  Soil  votes  by  nominating 
McClure,  an  anti-Taylor  man.  The  Free  Soilers,  however,  nom- 
inated Spelman,  who  took  the  Democratic  view  of  the  Hamilton 
County  affair;  whereupon  the  Democrats  indorsed  him,  "  and 
thus,"  said  the  True  Democrat,  "  the  principles  of  Free  Soil  are 
merged  in  a  little  dirty  squabble  about  an  apportionment  law."  1 
In  Cuyahoga  County,  Johnson,  the  Free  Soil  candidate  for 
Speaker  in  the  preceding  legislature,  found  Edward  Wade's 
views  on  the  Hamilton  County  case  unsatisfactory,  and,  in  a 
public  letter,  went  back  to  the  Whig  party.  All  the  bitterness 
which  the  Western  Reserve  and  Northwest  Ordinance  con- 
ventions had  begun  to  allay,  blazed  up  again  with  redoubled 
vigor. 

All  this  time  Chase  was  working  hard  to  secure  complete 
Democratic  and  Free  Soil  fusion.  From  the  outset  he  felt  that 
his  reputation  was  at  stake  on  the  Hamilton  County  case,  and 
he  spared  no  efforts  to  secure  vindication  in  the  next  election. 
Giddings  tried  to  induce  him  to  let  the  matter  drop;  but  he 
replied  at  great  length  that  it  was  impossible,  that  the  question 
was  one  of  principle  and  must  be  decided  at  the  polls,  and  that 
the  Free  Soilers  could  not  ignore  it.2  Accordingly  he  wrote 
scores  of  letters  in  all  directions,  urging  fusion.  "  To  me  it 
seems  clear  that  the  true  interest  and  duty  of  the  Democracy 
in  the  free  States,"  he  wrote  on  August  6,  "  points  to  union 
with  the  Free  Democrats  instead  of  alliance  with  the  slave- 
holders. ...  I  am  rejoiced  to  hear  that  in  Portage  and  Summit 
the  two  wings  of  the  Democracy  will  be  united  on  principle.  I 
wish  it  could  be  done  throughout  our  State."3  The  National 
Era  and  the  Cincinnati  Globe  also  applauded  "  reunion."  Said 
the  former:  "The  union  so  far  as  it  has  taken  place  has  been 
honorable  to  both  parties,  the  work  of  reformation  has  begun 
in  the  right  place."4  The  Globe  went  farther:  "G^side  from 
the  slavery  question,"  [as  if  that  were  a  minor  matter,]  "  there 

1  Sept.  27,  1849. 

2  Chase  to  Giddings,  April  4,  1849:  Chase  MSS. 

8  Chase  to  L.  W.  Hall  and  to  A.  Dimmock,  Aug.  6,  1849  :  R-  B-  Warden, 
Life  of  Chase,  332. 

4  National  Era,  Sept.  20,  1849. 


FREE  SOIL  LOSSES  IN  OHIO  ELECTIONS.  l8l 

are  numerous  things  common  to  the  old  Democracy  and  the 
Free  Democrats,"  such  as  strict  construction,  "  superior  rev- 
erence for  human  nature  and  human  rights,  hostility  to  special 
privileges,  progress,  et  cetera.  ...  It  has  now  become  the 
interest  of  the  Democratic  party  ...  to  seek  the  alliance  of 
Free  Soil  men  ...  to  promote  the  cause  of  Freedom  and 
Right. "£y  To  many  ex- Whigs,  of  course,  the  whole  series  of 
fusions  in  New  York,  Vermont,  and  Ohio  seemed  woful  mis- 
takes. The  True  Democrat  cried  :  "  We  can  have  no  coalitions  ! 
It  would  be  treachery  to  the  cause  of  the  people  to  enter  into 
them "  ;  it  called  them  "  adulterous  connections,"  "  nefarious 
schemes,"  2  and  considered  them  all  to  be  part  of  a  plot  to  ruin 
the  Free  Soil  party. 

When  the  election  day  came,  the  Democrats  profited  to  some 
extent  by  these  coalitions,  electing  six  more  members  of  the 
House  than  before,  and  one  more  Senator.  How  the  Free  Soil 
party  fared  it  is  difficult  to  make  out.  As  before,  they  had  eleven 
members  of  the  legislature,  four  of  whom  had  been  Whigs,  one 
a  Democrat,  and  six  Liberty  men.  Since  most  of  these  were 
elected  by  Democratic  fusion,  the  Free  Soil  vote  cannot  well 
be  estimated.  It  seems,  for  the  most  part,  to  have  held  its 
own  proportionately  wherever  there  were  separate  tickets.3 
Giddings  thought  that  the  vote  had  fallen  off,  and  laid  the 
blame  to  Chase.  "  His  policy  last  winter,"  he  wrote  to  Sum- 
ner,  "  came  near  ruining  us  in  this  State.  Had  we  on  the 
Reserve  adopted  his  plan  of  making  the  division  of  Hamilton 
County  a  test  we  should  have  been  blown  sky  high.  It  was  a 
most  singular  coincidence  that  the  Old  Hunker  Whigs  and 
Democrats  and  Mr.  Chase  were  at  the  same  time  all  laboring 
to  make  that  the  question.  On  the  Reserve  we  took  a  bold 
determined  position  to  have  no  reference  to  it  but  leave  our 
Representatives  to  act  as  they  pleased  in  regard  to  it.  //  was 
that  subject  alone  that  diminished  our  vote?  4  The  stormy  year 

1  Cincinnati  Globe,  May  16,  1849. 

2  April  12,  Sept.  20,  1849. 

8  The  Free  Soil  vote  in  eleven  counties  in  1848  was  14,457 1  in  1849, 
12,811. 

4  Oct.  29,  1849:  Sumner  MSS. 


1 82  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

1849  thus  came  to  a  close,  and  for  the  time  being  no  man  could 
say  just  where  the  Free  Soil  party  of  Ohio  stood.  The  only 
thing  certain  was,  that  it  would  take  a  prolonged,  strenuous 
effort  to  place  it  again  where  it  had  been  in  August,  1848, 
united,  self-reliant,  enthusiastic,  and  ready  to  "  fight  on,  fight 
ever." 

The  next  year  carried  the  Ohio  Free  Soil  party  still  farther 
on  the  downward  path.  In  the  legislature  nothing  of  import- 
ance took  place  except  squabbles  over  organization.  In  the 
House  mutual  distrust,  arising  from  the  Hamilton  County  case, 
caused  the  Free  Soilers  again  to  divide.  After  some  futile  bal- 
loting, in  which  A.  G.  Riddle,  supported  by  Whigs,  came  within 
one  vote  of  being  elected  Speaker,  Leiter,  a  Democrat,  secured 
the  office  by  an  obscure  intrigue,  much  as  Breslin  had  done 
the  year  before.  Beyond  some  squabbling  over  this  inci- 
dent, nothing  of  further  interest  took  place  in  the  House. 
In  the  Senate  the  irrepressible  Hamilton  County  case  made 
trouble ;  for  a  Whig  claimant  appeared,  whom  the  Whig  clerk 
of  the  preceding  Senate  insisted  upon  swearing  in.  This  made 
one  Senator  too  many,  a  fact  which  blocked  all  organization. 
For  some  weeks  the  Senate  wrangled,  taking  three  hundred  and 
one  ballots,  all  illegal,  since  each  party  teller  insisted  on  receiv- 
ing the  votes  of  all  the  Senators  of  his  own  party.  At  length, 
through  a  union  of  Free  Soilers  and  Whigs,  organization  was 
effected  and  the  extra  Senator  disposed  of. 

In  the  spring,  elections  were  held  for  a  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, and  again  fusion  was  the  order  of  the  day.  Only  in  the 
two  election  districts  of  Trumbull  and  Geauga,  and  Ashtabula 
and  Lake  counties,  where  the  two  old  parties  united,  did  the  Free 
Soilers  stand  alone  ;  of  eight  men  classed  as  Free  Soilers  who  sat 
in  the  convention,  three  were  elected  independently,  one  by  Whig 
votes,  and  four,  including  Dr.  Townshend,  by  Democratic  coali- 
tion. The  main  interest  of  the  country  in  this  year  centred 
upon  the  Congressional  struggle  over  Clay's  compromise.  With 
Southern  threats  of  disunion  filling  the  air,  and  with  President 
Taylor,  on  the  other  hand,  ready  to  use  force  to  prevent  the 
execution  of  those  threats,  local  elections  became  more  or  less 
perfunctory,  particularly  as  they  could  not  in  any  way  influence 


RADICAL  FREE  SOIL   CONVENTIONS.  183 

the  state  of  affairs  at  Washington.  The  Free  Soil  State  Con- 
vention met  at  Columbus  on  May  2,  1850,  and  adopted  some 
resolutions  which  indicated  that  the  unlimited  coalition  which 
for  over  a  year  had  bewildered  anti-slavery  men  had  begun  to 
lose  its  charm.  "  While  we  deprecate  affiliation  with  any  other 
political  organization,"  said  the  convention,  "  we  will  hail  with 
pleasure  accessions."  l  The  meeting  was  thinly  attended,  and 
many  of  the  southern  counties  were  unrepresented.  A  strong 
desire  was  shown  to  nominate  Sam  Lewis  for  Governor.  On 
his  refusal,  D.  R.  Tilden,  of  Summit  County,  formerly  a  Whig 
Congressman,  was  designated;  but  he,  in  turn,  felt  obliged  to  de- 
cline, although  adhering  strongly  to  the  Buffalo  platform,  and 
"  highly  gratified  by  the  honor  "  of  the  nomination. 

To  fill  this  vacancy,  a  "  mass  convention  "  met  at  Cleveland 
on  August  22.  The  few  persons  present  are  said  to  have  re- 
presented the  extreme  radical  element  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
and  they  signalized  themselves  by  passing  the  most  remarkable 
resolution  ever  entertained  by  a  Northwestern  Free  Soil  con- 
vention. After  nominating  for  governor  Rev.  E.  Smith,  an  old- 
time  Liberty  man,  and  adopting  the  customary  platform,  the 
convention  resolved :  "  That  notwithstanding  slavery  is  neces- 
sarily the  creature  of  local  State  law,  yet  in  the  language  of 
Madison,  '  if  it  becomes  a  source  of  expense  or  endangers  the 
stability  of  the  nation,  it  ceases  to  be  local  and  becomes  a  fit 
subject  for  the  legislation  of  the  General  Government.'  That 
time  has  now  come.  .  .  .  We  therefore  hold  that  it  is  not  only 
the  duty  of  the  General  Government  to  forbid  its  extension,  but 
that  humanity,  justice,  mercy,  and  self-preservation  demand, 
and  the  constitution  permits,  its  immediate  extermination  in  all 
the  States  and  Territories."  2  No  body  of  men  claiming  to  be 
Democrats  ever  unanimously  adopted  a  more  remarkable  reso- 
lution, in  which  a  dictum  of  one  of  the  "  fathers  "  served  as 
the  sole  basis  for  a  proposed  line  of  conduct  which  had  hitherto 
been  held  to  be  absolutely  unconstitutional  by  everybody  in  the 
United  States,  except  the  extremest  abolitionists.  Through  the 

1  National  Era,  May  30,  1850. 

2  Western  Reserve  Chronicle,  Aug.  28,  1850;  Author's  correspondence 
with  G.  Hoadly,  May  10,  1894. 


1 84  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

vigorous  opposition  of  George  Hoadly  and  others  the  resolu- 
tion was  reconsidered  and  finally  laid  on  the  table ;  yet  its 
previous  adoption  was  well  known  outside,  only  the  small  size  of 
the  convention  and  the  general  lack  of  interest  in  the  Ohio 
campaign  prevented  the  fact  from  being  used  with  annoying 
effect  against  the  party. 

In  the  Congressional  elections  the  third  party  made  little 
exertion.  Fusion  still  continued,  although  the  "  union "  con- 
ventions showed  a  sinister  desire  to  nominate  nothing  but  Old 
Line  Democrats.1  In  the  Nineteenth  Congressional  District, 
on  the  Reserve,  the  Free  Soilers  nominated  Newton,  and  the 
Whigs  ratified  the  ticket.  In  the  Twenty-first  District  a  con- 
vention of  the  United  Democracy  nominated  Norton  Towns- 
hend  for  Congress,  and  "  Old  Line  Hunkers  "  for  local  offices. 
Therefore  a  bolt  took  place,  and  a  separate  Free  Soil  nomina- 
tion of  J.  M.  Root  was  made,  more  with  the  hope  of  defeating 
Townshend  than  for  any  other  reason.2  Here  and  there  became 
visible  a  similar  tendency  to  withdraw  from  Democratic  coali- 
tion, the  Fairfield  Count}'  Convention  resolving  that  "  we  can- 
not as  consistent  Free  Soil  men  longer  act  with  said  party." 3 
Although  there  were  separate  Free  Soil  Congressional  tickets 
in  seven  districts,  the  campaign  was  dull.  Except  on  the 
Reserve,  scarcely  any  effort  was  made  to  bring  out  the  vote ; 
and  a  feeling  spread  among  anti-slavery  men  that  the  party's 
usefulness  had  ended  and  that  they  might  as  well  return  to  the 
old  organizations. 

Both  the  old  parties  in  this  year  made  a  distinct  effort  to 
draw  back  into  the  fold  wavering  bolters  of  1848.  The  Whigs, 
on  their  part,  were  unreservedly  anti-slavery,  from  Governor 
Ford's  message  of  January,  which  adopted  the  entire  Free  Soil 
platform,  to  their  State  Convention  of  May  6,  which  nominated 
Johnson,  a  former  "Whig  Abolitionist,"  and  made  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  one  of  its  planks.  "  The  indications  are,"  said  the 
National  Era,  "  that  the  Whigs  of  Ohio  have  determined  to 
carry  that  State  at  the  next  election  by  adopting  the  faith  of 
the  Free  Soilers."  4  The  Democrats,  on  their  part,  on  January  8, 

i  True  Democrat,  Sept.  4,  1850.  2  Ibid.,  Sept.  28,  1850. 

3  Ibid.,  Sept.  6,  1850.  4  Feb.  21,  1850. 


OLD  PARTIES  STAND  FOR  FREE  SOIL.  185 

1850,  re-adopted  verbatim  their  anti-slavery  resolution  of  1848, 
and  nominated  for  Governor  Judge  Wood  of  the  Supreme 
Bench,  a  Western  Reserve  anti-slavery  Democrat.  "A  better 
nomination,"  said  the  National  Era,  "  aside  from  political  con- 
siderations, could  hardly  have  been  made."1  In  spite  of  the 
reluctance  shown  by  many  Democrats  in  adopting  the  Free 
Soil  resolution,  their  attitude  and  the  nomination  proved  so 
attractive  to  many  still  under  the  sway  of  Chase's  logic  that, 
from  early  in  the  year,  Free  Soilers  of  1848  began  to  show 
signs  of  an  intention  to  vote  for  Judge  Wood.  Chase,  delighted 
at  the  prospect,  found  time  at  Washington  to  write  frequent 
letters  to  Ohio  urging  with  incessant  reiteration  the  necessity 
of  Free  Soil  and  Democratic  union.  "  I  still  strongly  hold  the 
faith,"  he  said,  "  that  it  is  to  a  regenerated  Democracy  that  the 
country  must  look  for  final  deliverance  from  the  thralldom  of 
the  Slave  Power  " ;  and  again,  "  I  am  anxious,  as  you  know,  for 
union  with  and  in  the  Democracy.  I  believe  that  Democratic 
principles  supply  the  only  safe  ground  on  which  the  battle  with 
the  slave  power  can  be  fought."  2  There  were,  of  course,  vigor- 
ous protests  on  the  other  side.  "  Is  the  Whig  or  Democratic 
party,"  asked  the  True  Democrat,  "  now  any  more  sound  on  the 
human  rights  question  than  in  1848?  "3  "  Let  every  one  feel," 
wrote  Sam  Lewis,  "that  a  vote  for  Wood  or  Johnson  is  a  vote 
for  sustaining  and  extending  slavery,  not  that  they  as  indi- 
viduals would  do  it,  but  their  parties  cannot  exist  on  any  other 
principle."4 

The  tide,  however,  was  setting  against  the  third  party: 
individuals  and  groups  rejoined  the  old  parties;  newspapers 
like  the  Toledo  Republican  turned  to  Wood ;  and  when  the  elec- 
tion day  came  the  vote  stood  as  follows:  Democratic  —  Wood, 
133,092;  Whig  —  Johnson,  121,095;  Free  Soil— Smith,  I3,8O2.5 
In  the  Congressional  election  Giddings  was  the  only  successful 
third-party  man,  Townshend  being  elected  by  Democrats  in 

1  Jan.  17,  1850. 

2  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  Jan.  12,  Feb.  2,  1850:  Chase  MSS.     Also  in 
letters  of  March  16  and  May  21. 

3  Aug.  29,  1850.  4  True  Democrat,  Sept.  18,  1850. 
6  Vote  in  Whig  Almanac,  1851. 


* 

1 86  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

spite  of  a  Free  Soil  bolt,  and  Newton  by  Whig  coalition.  The 
Whigs,  in  most  places  outside  the  Reserve,  even  where  there 
were  three  tickets,  received  Free  Soil  votes  and  made  some 
gains  in  the  Congressional  delegation.  They  also  gained  some 
seats  in  the  legislature  and,  as  compared  with  the  Presidential 
vote  of  1848,  increased  the  vote  for  Governor.  In  this  result 
we  trace  to  a  slight  extent  the  effect  of  a  popular  reaction 
against  the  Democracy  on  account  of  the  behavior  of  its  South- 
ern leaders  in  Congress. 

More  striking,  however,  than  anything  else  was  the  drop  in 
the  Free  Soil  vote.  Since  1848  it  had  lost  21,526,  or  nearly 
two-thirds,  of  which  about  15,000  vanished  from  the  counties 
outside  the  Reserve.  In  other  words,  the  Western  Reserve, 
which  in  1848  cast  less  than  half  of  the  total  third-party 
vote  in  the  State,  now,  in  spite  of  a  decline,  cast  about  three- 
fourths.  The  fact  that  it  was  an  "off"  year  does  not  explain 
this  decrease ;  for  the  Whig  and  Democratic  losses  were  both 
numerically  and  proportionately  less.  Where  had  the  absent 
Free  Soil  voters  gone?  Several  thousand  did  not  vote  at  all; 
these,  doubtless,  were  the  same  persons  who  had  voted  the  Lib- 
erty ticket  in  1844  and  the  Free  Soil  in  1848,  but  did  not  trouble 
themselves  about  State  elections ;  in  other  words,  they  were  part 
of  the  regular  stay-at-home  vote.  There  were  more,  however, 
who  returned  to  their  old  parties,  feeling  that  the  Free  Democ- 
racy had  shot  its  bolt ;  or  that,  since  the  local  parties  had  nomi- 
nated anti-slavery  candidates  on  anti-slavery  platforms,  principle 
no  longer  required  them  to  act  independently.  In  this  connec- 
tion, Chase's  notion  of  the  "  Democracy  "  of  the  Free  Soil  party 
proved  a  double-edged  tool:  if  it  made  the  return  of  Demo- 
cratic Free  Soilers  to  the  Old  Line  easy  by  minimizing  their 
difference ;  it  also  made  Whigs  feel  out  of  place  in  the  "  Free 
Democracy,"  and  anxious  to  get  into  more  congenial  company. 
There  were,  moreover,  since  the  repeal  of  the  Black  Laws,  no 
State  issues  for  the  third  party.  The  sole  remaining  difference 
in  principle  between  them  and  the  old  organizations  was  anti- 
slavery  action;  and  that  distinction  both  the  old  parties,  by 
their  platforms  and  nominations,  had  taken  away. 

When  any  persistent  abolitionist  tried  to  act  independently, 


DECLINE   OF  OHIO  FREE  SOIL  PARTY.  187 

the  effect  of  the  coalitions  of  1849  became  manifest  in  the  ab- 
sence, in  most  of  the  central  and  southern  counties,  in  1850,  of 
any  Free  Soil  organization  separate  from  the  Democratic.  So 
marked  was  this  inanition  that  it  paralyzed  all  Free  Soil  action, 
and  reduced  the  third-party  vote  in  these  regions  to  a  figure 
smaller  than  any  Liberty  vote  in  a  State  election  since  1842. 
Outside  the  Reserve  the  Free  Soil  voters  of  1850  were  probably 
nearly  all  Liberty  men,  and  on  the  Reserve  itself  there  were 
only  some  five  thousand  faithful  Whig  or  Democratic  Free  Soil- 
ers  of  1848.  For  all  practical  purposes,  the  Free  Soil  party  of 
Ohio  ceased  to  exist  in  1849;  and  in  1850  there  emerged  to 
view  once  more  the  original,  unreconciled  Liberty  party  of 
1840—47.  Liberty  leaders  once  more  assumed  the  manage- 
ment of  the  cause,  and,  with  the  exception  of  Giddings,  Root, 
Brinckerhoff,  Riddle,  and  a  few  others,  the  enthusiastic  bolters 
of  1848  sank  into  the  background.  The  Free  Soil  revolt  had 
plainly  failed  in  Ohio,  and,  in  spite  of  the  results  obtained  by 
coalition,  succeeding  years  had  only  emphasized  its  failure.  In 
the  autumn  of  1850  the  third-party  men  realized  that  they 
stood  once  more  at  the  foot  of  the  ladder,  with  all  the  weary 
work  of  agitation  and  organization  to  do  over  again. 

The  Free  Soil  party  of  Indiana  had  at  no  time  in  its  career 
any  such  stirring  episodes  as  those  which  enlivened  the  winter 
of  1848-49  in  Ohio;  but  with  even  swifter  pace  it  ran  the  same 
course  as  did  its  eastern  neighbor.  For  some  months  after  the 
Presidential  election,  newspapers  and  politicians  of  both  the  old 
parties  continued  with  unabated  fervor  to  advocate  the  Wilmot 
Proviso.  The  Democrats,  though  they  had  a  clear  majority  in 
the  legislature,  refused  to  re-elect  Hannegan  because  of  his 
equivocal  position  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and 
chose  in  his  place  Ex-Governor  Whitcomb,  whose  answers  to 
Free  Soil  questions  had  been  eminently  satisfactory.  On  Janu- 
ary 3,  1849,  the  Whig  State  Convention  "calmly  but  firmly  ex- 
pressed the  conviction  that  the  extension  of  slavery  over  the 
newly  acquired  territories  ought  to  be  prohibited  by  law,"  and 
urged  that  "all  constitutional  and  proper  means  should  be 
adopted  to  free  our  National  Capitol  from  the  last  vestige  of 


1 88  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

human  bondage  " ; l  and  local  Whig  conventions  echoed  these 
sentiments.  At  about  the  same  time  the  Democratic  State 
Convention  resolved  that,  since  "New  Mexico  and  California 
are  in  fact  and  in  law  free  Territories,  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress 
to  prevent  the  introduction  of  slavery  within  their  limits."2  It 
seemed  as  if  an  anti-slavery  millennium  were  at  hand.3 

In  spite  of  such  inducements  for  the  abandonment  of  separate 
action,  the  Free  Soil  party  had  for  some  months  after  the  elec- 
tion of  1848  showed  much  activity  in  organizing;  and  the  press 
spoke  at  first  very  courageously.  "  Who  says  the  Free  Soilers 
ought  to  disband  ?  "  asked  the  Tippecanoe  Journal.  "  Bless  your 
soul,  neighbor,  you  don't  seem  to  understand  anything  about 
the  Free  Soil  movement.  No,  Sir,  the  Free  Soil  party  —  or 
Free  Democracy  as  some  prefer  calling  it  —  WILL  NOT  DIS- 
BAND !  .  .  .  Ours  is  the  campaign  of  Freedom,  and  it  cannot 
be  closed  until  Freedom  and  Right,  Liberty  and  Equality,  have 
finally  triumphed."4  "  Shall  we,"  asked  the  Free  Territory  Sen- 
tinel, "  having  espoused  a  cause  which  all  admit  to  be  right, 
and  having  already  accomplished  great  good,  shall  we  now  aban- 
don it?  Organize!  Organize!  We  must  relax  none  of  our 
energies.  Self-respect  forbids  that  we  should  go  back  to  our 
old  party  allegiance  after  having  been  denounced  and  stigma- 
tized without  stint  for  doing  what  we  firmly  believed  to  be  our 
duty.  We  are  therefore  distinctly  in  favor  of  organization  as 
an  independent  and  permanent  party."5 

In  January,  1849,  the  State  Free  Soil  Convention  met  at 
Indianapolis,  and,  still  thrilling  with  the  excitement  of  the  re- 
cent campaign,  seemed  at  that  time  to  be  in  favor  of  indepen- 
dent action.  When  J.  H.  Bradley,  a  Free  Soil  elector,  moved 
that  the  convention,  instead  of  making  nominations,  pass  reso- 
lutions in  favor  of  the  Whig  ticket  and  adjourn,  his  proposal 
was  voted  down ;  and  J.  H.  Cravens  and  J.  W.  Wright  were 

1  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Feb.  17,  1849;  Indiana  State  Journal,  Aug.  24, 
1853.     See  App.  C. 

2  National  Era,  Jan.  25,  1849. 

8  Ibid.,  Dec.  21-28,  1848;  Indiana  State  Journal,  July  29,  1854. 

4  Quoted  in  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Dec.  6,  1848. 

5  Ibid.,  Nov.  1 8,  1848. 


INDIANA   PARTIES  ALL  FOR  FREE  SOIL.  189 

selected  for  the  State  ticket  on  the  Buffalo  platform.1  In  its 
enthusiasm,  the  convention  issued  a  call  for  the  mass  meeting 
described  in  the  preceding  chapter,  to  be  held  at  Cleveland, 
July  13,  1849,  to  commemorate  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  H. 
L.  Ellsworth  duly  appeared  as  a  delegate  appointed  by  the 
Indianapolis  Convention. 

During  the  spring,  however,  the  unanimous  chorus  of  Whig 
and  Democratic  anti-slavery  professions  began  to  have  its  effect. 
In  most  of  the  Congressional  districts  where  there  were  any 
Free  Soilers,  the  policy  of  questioning  was  resorted  to  by  the 
especial  advice  of  the  Free  Soil  Central  Committee,  who  issued 
an  address  containing  a  suitable  list  of  questions.2  When  the 
August  elections  drew  near,  the  campaign  presented  the  spec- 
tacle, hitherto  unprecedented  in  Indiana,  of  all  the  candidates 
claiming  to  be  on  the  same  anti-slavery  ground.  The  term 
"Free  Soil,"  as  describing  a  party,  ceased  to  have  any  meaning 
when  it  was  assumed  by  every  Whig  candidate  and  by  nearly,  if 
not  quite,  all  of  the  Democrats.  "We  believe  there  are  few 
Whigs  or  Democrats,"  said  the  Democratic  Indiana  Register, 
"that  do  not  believe  in  the  principle  of  non-extension."3 
"There  exists  no  possibility  of  the  election  of  the  Free  Soil 
candidates,"  said  the  Whig  State  Journal  to  the  new  party ; 
"then  what  is  to  be  gained  by  voting  for  them?  By  doing 
so  you  may  prevent  the  election  of  men  who  agree  with  you 
on  every  single  political  question,  including  the  question  you 
place  above  all  others.  Is  it  the  part  of  wisdom  thus  to  act?"4 

Some  Democratic  candidates  for  Congress  outbid  even  the 
Whigs.  Dr.  Fitch  in  the  Ninth  District,  when  questioned  in 
regard  to  the  principal  points  in  the  anti-slavery  creed,  asserted : 
"If  no  older  or  abler  member  whose  influence  for  them  would 
be  greater  than  mine  introduces  them  to  Congress,  I  shall  do  so 
myself,  if  I  have  the  honor  of  holding  a  seat  there."6  It  was 
little  wonder  that,  with  such  appeals  re-echoing  on  every  side, 
the  Free  Democrats  of  Tippecanoe  County,  which  had  been  a 

1  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Jan.  24,  1849;  National  Era,  Feb.  8,  1849. 

2  Ibid.,  June  13,  1849;  National  Era,  July  12,  1849. 
8  Quoted  in  National  Era,  Aug.  23,  1 849. 

4  Quoted  ibid.,  July  5,  1849.  5  /&#•»  Sept.  20,  1849. 


190  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

hot-bed  of  revolt  in  1848,  now  concluded  to  make  no  nomina- 
tions, "  inasmuch  as  both  the  Democratic  and  Whig  candidates 
in  answer  to  letters  of  inquiry  declared  themselves  in  favor  of 
the  Wilmot  Proviso,  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  and  the  removal  of  the  seat  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  a  Free  State."1 

The  only  place  where  the  Free  Soilers  cut  any  figure  in  this 
Congressional  election  was  in  the  Fourth  District,  where  there 
were  special  conditions.  This  region  contained  a  large  Quaker 
population,  and  had  been  a  centre  of  abolitionism  ever  since  the 
movement  began.  The  Whigs  had  hitherto  shown  a  large  ma- 
jority; but  in  the  summer  of  1848  a  great  number  had  followed 
the  lead  of  G.  W.  Julian  in  support  of  Van  Buren ;  and  it  was 
seen  that  unless  these  bolters  could  be  induced  to  return,  the 
Whig  party  was  fatally  weakened  in  this  stronghold.  On  a  re- 
duced scale,  the  situation  resembled  that  on  the  Western  Reserve 
in  Ohio ;  and  here  as  there  the  Democrats,  who  hitherto  had 
had  no  hope  of  success,  tended  strongly  to  favor  coalition  with 
the  Free  Soilers.  Consequently,  when  the  Free  Soilers  of  the 
District  nominated  Julian  for  Congress  in  1849,  and  began  a 
vigorous  campaign,  most  of  the  Democratic  local  conventions 
adopted  anti-slavery  platforms  and  joined  in  his  support. 

The  Whigs  had  been  angling  for  Free  Soil  votes  ever  since 
the  preceding  year ;  and  the  call  for  the  Henry  County  Whig 
Convention  had  proclaimed  that  "  Free  Soilers  generally,  and 
especially  Free  Soil  Whigs  who  voted  for  Van  Buren,  or  did  not 
vote  at  all,  are  invited  to  attend." 2  S.  W.  Parker,  the  regular 
Whig  candidate  for  Congress,  claimed  to  have  been  an  aboli- 
tionist for  twenty  years,  that  is,  since  1829,  and  made  direct 
appeals  for  Quaker  support.  Upon  Julian,  the  "  renegade,"  a 
flood  of  contempt  was  poured;  and  as  Julian  when  aroused 
was  a  hard  fighter,  the  contest  became  extremely  bitter  and 
personal.  "  This  district,"  he  wrote  later,  "  in  the  matter  of 
liberality  and  progress  was  in  advance  of  all  other  portions  of 
the  state ;  and  yet  the  immeasurable  wrath  and  scorn  which 
were  lavished  upon  the  men  who  deserted  the  Whig  party  on 

1  Cincinnati  Globe,  July  25,  1849. 

2  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Nov.  29,  1848. 


JULIANAS  CAMPAIGN,  1849.  IQI 

account  of  the  nomination  of  Gen.  Taylor  can  scarcely  be 
conceived.  The  friends  of  a  lifetime  were  suddenly  turned  into 
foes  and  their  words  were  often  dipped  in  venom.  The  contest 
was  bitter  beyond  all  precedent."  l  Every  effort  was  made  by 
Whig  papers  to  spread  the  impression  that  Julian  was  a  nonen- 
tity, feeble  physically  and  mentally,  hardly  more  than  half- 
witted ;  and  the  Free  Democrats,  on  their  part,  exhausted  their 
energies  in  proclaiming  Parker  a  lying  hypocrite,  a  blasphemer, 
and  a  sanctimonious  bully.2  So  much  were  the  Free  Soilers 
engrossed  in  this  contest  that  the  fact  that  there  was  an  anti- 
slavery  State  ticket  was  entirely  overlooked.  On  the  day 
before  the  election,  the  Free  Territory  Sentinel  suddenly  recol- 
lected it  in  time  to  remark  apologetically :  "  We  have  said  little 
in  regard  to  these  two  offices,  but  we  wish  Free  Soilers  will  not 
forget  that  our  candidates  are  in  the  field  .  .  .  good  and  true 
men.  They  should  receive  the  vote  of  every  Free  Soiler."3 
In  August,  1849,  Julian  was  elected  over  Parker  by  a  narrow 
majority;  and  elsewhere  in  the  State  the  Democrats,  profiting 
by  their  Free  Soil  professions,  carried  every  district  but  one, 
and  elected  their  State  ticket. 

In  this  way  it  happened  that  Indiana,  from  an  anti-slavery 
standpoint  the  most  backward  of  the  Northwestern  States, 
came  to  have  a  Free  Soil  Representative  in  Congress  to  stand 
beside  Giddings,  Root,  and  Durkee.  This  result  was  due  to 
coalition,  and  seemed  completely  to  justify  the  system ;  but  the 
vote  for  Governor  presented  a  different  aspect  of  the  matter. 
It  stood  as  follows:  Democratic  —  Wright,  76,996;  Whig  — 
Embree,  67,218;  Free  Soil  —  Cravens,  3,oi8.4  As  compared 
with  the  vote  of  the  year  before,  the  total  vote  was  smaller  by 
5,000;  but  this  loss  was  confined  to  the  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers, 
who  had  lost  2,000  and  5,000  respectively,  whereas  the  Demo- 
crats had  gained  about  2,000  over  the  preceding  year.  Possibly 
some  of  this  Democratic  gain  was  due  to  the  return  of  a  few 
Taylor  Democrats  to  their  old  party;  but  in  the  main,  no 

1  G.  W.  Julian,  Political  Recollections,  72. 

2  For  both  sides,  see  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Aug.  I,  1849. 
«  Ibid. 

4  Official  figures  in  Indianapolis  Sentinel,  September,  1849. 


192  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

doubt,  it  was  composed  of  Free  Sellers.  The  logic  of  the  Free 
Soil  Central  Committee  had  been  destructive  to  the  party's 
success ;  for  if  it  was  proper  to  vote  directly  for  local  candi- 
dates of  the  old  parties,  why  not  for  Governor  also,  particularly 
since  both  candidates  were  Wilmot  Proviso  men?  In  Julian's 
district  so  cordial  was  the  feeling  between  Democrats  and  Free 
Soilers  that  a  correspondent  wrote  to  the  National  Era  that 
they  were  permanently  united.1 

The  result  of  this  year's  operations  was,  that  after  the  fall  of 
1849  the  State  Free  Soil  party  of  Indiana  simply  ceased  to 
exist.  There  was  no  life  left;  there  were  no  leaders  except 
Julian,  and  he  was  in  Washington.  A  call  for  a  State  Conven- 
tion at  Indianapolis  to  establish  a  central  newspaper  fell  abso- 
lutely flat  ;2  nor  in  the  winter  of  1849-50  did  even  the  hitherto 
reliable  Henry,  Wayne,  and  Randolph  County  anti-slavery  men 
take  any  action.  Now  and  then,  as  the  spring  approached  and 
elections  were  coming  on  for  a  Constitutional  Convention  as 
well  as  for  local  offices,  individuals  called  for  action  in  the 
columns  of  the  Indiana  Trite  Democrat /8  but  still  nothing  was 
done.  "What  has  become  of  the  friends  of  the  slave?"  asked 
Daniel  Worth,  a  lifelong  abolitionist.  "Where  is  the  zeal, 
devotion,  and  sacrifice  of  former  years?  I  have  watched  with 
deepest  sorrow  the  declension  of  the  anti-slavery  spirit.  It  is  so 
long  since  we  have  had  a  meeting,  let  us  look  each  other  in  the 
face"  ;4  but  he  appealed  in  vain. 

When  nominations  were  finally  made,  whatever  Free  Soil 
activity  existed  found  its  outlet  in  renewed  coalition.  In  Wayne 
County  a  Free  Soil  convention,  on  June  8,  1850,  did  nothing 
more  than  nominate  to  fill  certain  gaps  which  a  previous  Demo- 
cratic convention  had  left  invitingly  in  its  list.5  In  Henry 
County  a  similar  union  took  place.  In  Union  County  a  mass 
union  convention  met ;  and  in  Cass  County  a  Free  Democratic 
convention  at  Logansport,  on  July  27,  selected  a  ticket  out  of 

1  National  Era,  Sept.  20,  1849. 

2  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  Nov.  7,  Dec.  5,  1849. 

8  Known  until  1850  as  the  Free  Territory  Sentinel. 
4  Indiana  True  Democrat,  May  22,  1 850. 
6  Ibid.,  June  12,  1850. 


INDIANA  FREE  SOIL  PARTY  VANISHES.  193 

those  already  in  nomination  by  the  old  parties.1  All  these 
fusions  aroused  again  the  bitter  wrath  of  Whigs,  and  called  out 
protests  from  some  Free  Soilers.  Why  is  it,  asked  one,  that 
Free  Soil  Whigs  never  receive  any  nominations?  Is  it  because 
they  are  Whigs?  or  is  it  through  intrigue  and  management  on 
the  part  of  the  leading  old  abolitionists  and  old  Democrats?2 

The  summer  elections  of  1850  showed  that  coalition  had 
begun  to  lose  its  effectiveness  ;  for  in  Wayne  County  the  fusion- 
ists  were  beaten,  and  to  the  State  Constitutional  Convention  but 
one  Free  Soiler  was  elected,  I.  Kinley,  from  Henry  County. 
The  Free  Soil  party  of  Indiana  had  ceased  to  be  a  power  of  any 
sort  in  the  State.  Without  any  of  the  bitter  internal  struggles 
that  convulsed  the  party  in  Ohio,  it  had  sunk  into  a  state  of 
almost  complete  decay.  The  only  men  who  still  adhered  to  its 
principles  and  preferred  a  separate  organization  were  some  of 
the  old-time  Liberty  men  and  a  few  Whigs,  in  all  a  mere  cor- 
poral's guard.  All  this  had  been  accomplished  without  any 
reference  to  the  Compromise  of  1850,  but  solely  through  the 
full  acceptance  by  the  Indiana  Free  Soilers  of  the  anti-slavery 
promises  made  so  profusely  by  both  Whigs  and  Democrats  in 
1849  and  1850. 

In  the  autumn  of  1848  the  Free  Soilers  of  northern  Illinois 
seemed  on  the  threshold  of  a  brilliant  career.  They  were  con- 
centrated in  several  contiguous  counties  in  two  Congressional 
districts,  one  of  which  for  five  years  had  been  the  "  banner  " 
Liberty  district  of  the  country.  Their  leaders  were  experienced 
politicians,  their  enthusiasm  had  been  tremendous,  they  had  an 
active  newspaper  press,  and  they  stood  a  good  chance  of  carry- 
ing a  dozen  counties  for  the  legislature  and  of  electing  one 
Congressman,  perhaps  two.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this  promise,  no 
third  party  experienced  a  more  ignominious  drop  than  did  the 
Illinois  Free  Soilers  in  the  two  years,  1849-50.  For  this  fall 
may  be  assigned  several  reasons,  an  important  one,  without 
doubt,  being  the  change  brought  about  in  the  political  situation 
by  the  new  constitution  adopted  in  the  spring  of  1848.  This 

1  National  Era,  Aug.  8,  Sept.  5,  1850. 

2  Indiana  True  Democrat,  June  19,  1850. 

'3 


194  COLLAPSE   OF  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

instrument  gave  the  Governor  a  four  years1  term,  and  made 
legislative  elections  biennial.  The  first  election  held  under 
these  requirements  had  been  in  August,  1848,  before  a  separate 
Free  Soil  party  had  been  organized ;  consequently  there  were 
no  third-party  Congressmen  or  members  of  the  legislature. 
This  circumstance  at  the  outset  left  the  new  organization  with 
no  accredited  mouthpieces,  with  nothing  more  tangible  than 
principles  to  support,  and  with  no  immediate  prospect  of  any- 
thing else.  In  the  next  place,  there  would  be  no  State  or 
national  election  of  any  importance  until  1850;  and  thus  the 
new  party  was  left  for  two  years  with  nothing  to  do.  The 
situation  was  calculated  to  make  the  revolt  of  1848  seem 
merely  a  temporary  outburst;  and  since  the  Barnburners  of 
"  Long  John  Wentworth's"  district  found  no  necessity  for  com- 
mitting themselves  at  once  on  the  point  of  a  separate  organiza- 
tion, they  had  plenty  of  time  to  cool  their  Wilmot  Proviso 
enthusiasm  of  1847-48. 

Yet  at  first  in  Illinois,  as  in  Indiana,  it  seemed  as  if  Free  Soil 
sentiments  ruled  the  State.  All  the  papers  of  the  northern 
counties  talked  boldly;  on  January  24,  1849,  the  legislature, 
in  which  the  Democrats  had  a  large  majority,  by  a  strict  sec- 
tional vote  of  the  northern  counties  against  "  Egypt,"  in- 
structed its  Senators  and  Representatives  to  vote  for  the 
Wilmot  Proviso.  Party  lines  could  scarcely  be  said  to  be 
drawn;  but  when  the  Western  Citizen  claimed  this  action  of  the 
legislature  as  a  triumph  of  the  Free  Soil  Party  principles,  the 
Chicago  Journal  in  its  anti-slavery  enthusiasm  retorted  that  it 
was  good  Whig  doctrine.  "  Every  Whig  in  both  houses,"  it 
said,  "  voted  for  these  resolutions,  as  they  have  done  on  similar 
ones  before  the  humbug  of  the  Free  Soil  party  had  a  begin- 
ning." x  The  instructions  were  so  repellent  to  Senator  Douglas 
that  an  effort  was  made  to  sweeten  them  to  his  taste  by  the  in- 
troduction of  a  resolution  covering  him  with  flattery,  and 
begging  him,  in  case  he  disagreed  with  the  instructions,  not  to 
resign.  Even  the  members  from  " Egypt"  declined  to  stoop  so 
low,  and  the  resolution  was  rejected  with  scant  courtesy.2  In 
the  election  of  a  Senator  the  Whigs  were  powerless,  and  there 
i  Jan.  13,  1849.  2  National  Era,  Feb.  i,  1849. 


INACTIVITY  OF  ILLINOIS  FREE  SOILERS.          1  95 

was  no  distinct  struggle  on  the  slavery  question  ;  but  the  Wil- 
mot  Proviso  received  recognition  by  sending  to  the  Senate 
General  Shields,  who  was  reported  to  be  in  favor  of  its 
principle. 

The  next  year  (1850)  came  a  Congressional  election,  and  the 
Free  Soil  party  of  Illinois  had  an  opportunity  to  assert  itself. 
By  this  time,  however,  matters  were  much  changed  since  1848: 
coalition  had  run  its  course  in  the  Northwest,  and  —  most  r-, 

impressive   of  all   to    Illinois__e^r.D£mQ£rats.—  _th&,J^ 


-~ 

Barnburners  had  _  rejoinejdjthe^jg  r>f 

1848  had  died  away,  and  the  "  Union-s^ingr'^^c^^ojF^i^oJiad  j?'17"1*^ 

begun  to  be  strong.     Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  inaction  among     fT£-V  ^ 

Illinois    Barnburners    during    1849,    and    of  their    apathy    in  II 

1850,  local  Free  Soil  conventions  continued,  as  if  independent 

action  were  the  course  to  be  followed  ;  and,  as  usual,  interest     /g  ^  c 

centred  in  the  Fourth  District,  where  in  1848  the  Free  Soil  vote 

for  President  had   been   larger  than  that  of  either  of  the  old 

parties.     The  party  was  now,  however,  in  a  rather  disorganized 

condition.     Its   three  elements  were  more  irreconcilable  here 

than  in  any  other   Northwestern  State,  and    each  thoroughly 

distrusted  the  others:    the  Liberty  men  of  the  Lovejoy  type 

felt  ill   at   ease  beside  the  Barnburner  politicians,  Hoyne  and 

Arnold  ;   and  both  of  these  groups  were  to  the  Whigs  equally 

repugnant. 

In  the  summer  of  1850,  while  all  eyes  were  turned  toward 
Washington,  Free  Soil  county  conventions  passed  vigorous 
resolutions,  and  on  August  28  the  district  convention  nomi- 
nated for  Congress  W.  B.  Ogden,  a  former  Democrat.  Appar- 
ently the  coalition  examples  of  their  brethren  in  other  States 
were  to  produce  no  result.  The  Lake  County  Convention, 
having  been  approached  by  the  regular  Democrats,  resolved 
"  That  we  regard  all  overtures  made  by  either  of  the  old  parties 
to  unite  with  us  as  unworthy  of  serious  consideration,"1  —  a 
show  of  independence  which  proved  delusive.  Shortly  after  this 
the  Democratic  district  convention  nominated  Dr.  Molony,  but 
from  the  conflicting  accounts  it  is  not  clear  whether  it  adopted 
a  Wilmot  Proviso  platform.  At  any  rate,  Molony,  extremely 
1  Chicago  Journal,  Aug.  29,  1850. 


196  COLLAPSE  IN  THE  RIVER  STATES. 

anxious  to  get  the  Free  Soil  vote,  hastened  to  declare  himself  a 
strong  anti-slavery  man.  Apparently  the  Barnburners  were 
waiting  for  some  such  sign,  for  within  a  few  days  Ogden,  their 
nominee,  resigned  in  Molony's  favor,  "  thinking  two  Democratic 
nominations  needless";  and  without  further  hesitation  the  ma- 
jority of  those  who  in  1848  had  shouted  the  loudest  for  Van 
Buren  marched  back  into  the  old  ranks.1  Some  local  meetings 
declared  outright  that  the  Free  Soil  party  was  at  an  end.  If 
the  Chicago  Journal  is  to  be  believed,  a  Bureau  County  Union 
Convention  resolved  "  That  the  Democratic  and  Free  Soil  par- 
ties be  united  and  that  so  far  as  the  action  of  this  meeting  can 
effect  this  end  they  are  hereby  united  one  and  inseparable  now 
and  forever." 2  To  Lovejoy,  Codding,  and  others  of  the  old 
Liberty  guard,  this  action  was  simply  intolerable,  and  on  Octo- 
ber 23,  in  a  convention  at  Aurora,  they  signalized  their  devo- 
tion to  a  third  party  by  nominating  in  Ogden's  place  an 
old-time  Liberty  candidate,  J.  H.  Collins.3 

Meanwhile  the  Illinois  Whigs  were  talking  pure  Free  Soil 
doctrine.  Local  conventions  in  Kane  and  McHenry  counties, 
for  example,  resolved  "  That  we  are  ceaselessly  and  eternally 
opposed  to  human  bondage,  and  we  believe  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  Congress  to  prohibit  by  positive  enactment  its  increase."  4 
Finally  the  Fourth  Congressional  District  Convention  nominated 
C.  Coffing,  a  strong  anti-slavery  man,  on  an  outright  Free  Soil 
platform.  If  Free  Soilers  wished  an  unexceptionable  candidate 
and  platform,  there  stood  the  Whigs  ready  to  receive  them ; 
and  it  is  probable  that  many  of  them,  in  their  disgust  at  what 
they  called  the  Barnburners'  "  betrayal,"  voted  for  Coffing.  In 
any  case,  the  Congressional  vote  in  November  showed  the 
astonishing  fact  that  the  Illinois  Free  Soil  party,  without  much 
formal  coalition,  had  simply  ceased  to  be.  Only  in  the  Fourth 
District  was  there  any  third-party  vote,  and  there  it  was  smaller 
than  any  Liberty  vote  since  1843.  On  the  contrary,  the  Whigs 
gained  so  largely  in  this  district  and  all  over  the  northern  part 

1  National  Era,  Oct.  24,  1850. 

2  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1850. 

3  Ibid.,  Oct.  17-25,  1850. 

4  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  17,  1850;  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Aug.  22,  1850. 


DECAY  OF  ILLINOIS  FREE  SOIL  PARTY.  197 

of  the  State,  that  one  can  believe  what  was  asserted  at  the  x — > 
time,  —  that  most  of  the  Free  Soilers  voted  the  Whig  ticket.1 
Even  in  the  Fourth  District,  Coffing  "  ran  "  Molony  so  closely 
as  to  indicate  that,  had  Collins  been  nominated  a  little  earlier, 
Coffing  might  possibly  have  won.  But  the  leaders  of  the  Barn- 
burners were  once  more  safe  at  home  in  their  old  party,  and  the 
brilliant  Free  Soil  promise  of  1848  had  faded  into  darkness. 

What  distinguishes  the  fate  of  the  Illinois  Free  Soil  party  is 
the  quiet  way  in  which  it  died  out,  with  none  of  the  bitter  strug- 
gles of  Ohio,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin.  Its  end  shows,  as  does 
the  similar  fate  of  the  party  in  Indiana,  how  shallow  in  its  anti- 
slavery  basis  was  the  Democratic  bolt  of  1850  in  these  two  Ohio 
River  States.  The  hard  contest  that  Cass  waged  in  his  own 
State  with  members  of  his  own  party,  the  sharp  dealings  of 
1849  in  Wisconsin  and  Ohio,  were  unknown  alike  in  Indiana 
and  in  Illinois,  where  the  Free  Soil  party  of  1848  disintegrated 
almost  without  a  struggle. 

1  The  vote  in  1850  stood  as  follows  :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Free  Soil. 

Fourth  District       Molony        11,231        Coffing        10,587       Collins        804 
Collins's  vote  is  elsewhere  stated  as  1,213  '•>  *n  anv  case,  it  was  about  equal 
to  the  liberty  vote  of  1843,  which  was  1,174.     See  figures  in  Whig  Almanac^ 
1851,  and  in  Chicago  Journal,  1850. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

COLLAPSE   OF   THE   FREE   SOIL   PARTY    IN   MICHIGAN, 
WISCONSIN,   AND    IOWA. 

1849-1850. 

IN  the  three  northernmost  States  of  the  Old  Northwest,  coali- 
tion assumed  more  ambitious  forms  than  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  or 
Illinois ;  but  the  result  on  the  Free  Soil  organization  was  quite 
as  disastrous.  In  Michigan  the  one  great  difference  at  the 
outset  was  that  the  State,  unlike  its  neighbors,  was  in  the  hands 
of  a  "  boss."  Lewis  Cass,  though  an  honest,  able  man,  was  a 
thorough  politician  and  partisan,  and  kept  a  controlling  hand 
over  every  movement  of  his  party  in  the  State.  On  accepting 
the  Baltimore  nomination  of  1848  he  had  resigned  his  seat  in 
the  Senate;  and  when,  after  his  defeat  for  the  Presidency,  he 
returned  to  offer  himself  as  a  candidate  for  re-election,  he  met 
with  violent  opposition  on  every  side.  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers 
were  eager  to  complete  his  discomfitu.re  in  every  possible  way, 
and  (still  more  ominous)  there  were  signs  of  a  strong  anti-slavery 
revolt  in  his  own  party. 

When  the  legislature  had  convened,  Governor  Ransom  directly 
challenged  Cass's  position  by  a  message  arguing  strongly  in 
favor  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Terri- 
tories, and  crying,  "  Should  it  be  suffered  to  extend  a  single 
line  into  territory  now  free?  No,  never!"1  Following  this, 
members  of  both  parties  introduced  resolutions  instructing  Sen- 
ators to  vote  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  on  January  9  and  13 
such  a  series  was  passed  by  votes  of  14  to  7  in  the  Senate, 
35  to  26  in  the  House:  nothing  could  have  been  more  clearly 
defiant  of  Cass,  or  more  ominous  for  the  success  of  a  candidate 
1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Jan.  3,  1849. 


FREE   SOIL  ELEMENTS  IN  MICHIGAN.  199 

who  thought  the  Wilmot  Proviso  unconstitutional.  When  the 
matter  of  choosing  a  Senator  came  up,  it  looked  as  if  Cass 
were  doomed ;  for  seven  Democratic  Senators  and  ten  Repre- 
sentatives signed  a  declaration  that  they  could  not  vote  for 
Cass,  because  he  had  been  improperly  nominated  for  President 
by  the  Baltimore  Convention,  because  they  disliked  his  opin- 
ions on  slavery,  and  because  it  was  the  turn  of  the  western  half 
of  the  State  to  have  a  Senator.1  The  seven  Senators  holding 
the  balance  of  power  prevented  a  joint  session  for  several  days. 
It  was  generally  believed  that  there  would  be  no  election,  but 
at  last  one  of  the  seven  gave  way,  finding  party  pressure  too 
severe  to  endure  ;  the  bolters  thus  lost  control  of  the  Senate, 
and  on  January  23  General  Cass  was  re-elected  by  a  vote  of  44 
to  38.  It  was  the  narrowest  escape  from  defeat  that  the  "  boss  " 
of  Michigan  experienced  until  the  rise  of  the  Republican  party 
in  1857. 

Encouraged  by  the  presence  of  so  much  Free  Soil  sentiment 
in  Cass's  own  party,  the  various  elements  of  opposition  began 
to  think  of  combining  against  him  and  his  followers  in  the  com- 
ing State  election.  In  the  early  months  of  1849  the  Whigs 
especially  showed  a  strong  desire  to  make  common  cause  with 
the  Free  Soilers,  a  course  for  which  a  precedent  was  furnished 
by  several  instances  of  coalition  in  1848.  Negotiations  were  soon 
under  way,  and  by  June  matters  had  progressed  to  such  a  point 
that  Whig  and  Free  Soil  State  conventions  were  called  for  the 
same  day,  the  Whigs  taking  the  initiative  to  secure  the  coin- 
cidence. Their  action,  however,  met  with  strong  opposition  in 
both  parties ;  for  the  "  regular  "  Whigs  were,  of  course,  alarmed 
at  any  appearance  of  coalition,  while  many  of  the  Free  Soilers, 
particularly  the  leaders,  looked  for  allies  rather  to  the  anti-Cass 
branch  of  the  Democratic  party  than  to  the  Whigs.2  The 
Detroit  Advertiser,  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  been 
Birney's  severest  critic  in  1844,  now  took  the  lead  in  advocating 
a  coalition  of  Whigs  and  anti-slavery  men ;  it  asserted  that 
the  non-extension  of  slavery  was  "  part  and  parcel  of  the  Whig 
creed,"  whereas  the  Democrats  had  adopted  it  purely  for  par- 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Jan.  23,  1849. 

2  National  Era,  May  17,  1849. 


200  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

tisan  purposes ;  and  it  called  for  co-operation.  "  We  ask  you, 
Free  Soil  men  of  Michigan,"  it  said,  "  is  it  not  better  that  we 
should  work  together  and  teach  these  hypocrites  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  Free  Soil  with  us  is  something  which  cannot  be  put  on 
and  off  at  pleasure?"1  The  two  conventions  met  on  the  ap- 
pointed day,  but  no  coalition  resulted,  in  spite  of  the  Adver- 
tiser s  hints,  and  of  the  evident  desire  for  union  on  the  part  of 
very  many  of  the  delegates  in  both.  The  Whig  convention 
had  been  preceded  by  a  mass  meeting,  which,  under  the  lead 
of  J.  M.  Howard,  adopted  resolutions  supporting  Taylor  and 
declaring  slavery  extension  not  a  party  question.2  Although 
the  State  Convention  adopted  six  resolutions  comprising  the 
Buffalo  platform,  and  offered  them  through  a  conference  com- 
mittee to  the  Free  Soilers,  the  latter  could  not  overlook  the 
resolution  of  the  preceding  day,  and  declined  to  co-operate. 
Accordingly,  separate  candidates  were  nominated,  the  Whigs 
selecting  John  Owen  for  Governor,  G.  A.  Coe  for  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  and  H.  H.  Duncklee,  of  the  Detroit  Advertiser,  for 
State  printer;  the  Free  Soilers  presenting  F.  J.  Littlejohn,  A. 
Blair,  and  E.  Hussey,  a  Democrat,  a  Whig,  and  a  Liberty  man 
respectively. 

During  July  and  August,  politicians  of  all  three  parties  con- 
tinued actively  at  work.  The  Free  Soilers  undoubtedly  hoped 
that  the  anti-Cass  Democrats  would  swing  their  party  conven- 
tion in  favor  of  Littlejohn,  who,  until  the  preceding  year,  had 
been  a  very  prominent  Democrat ;  or  that  they  would  bolt  from 
an  unacceptable  Democratic  nomination.  During  the  summer, 
however,  Cass  himself  entered  the  field,  determined  to  save  his 
own  credit  by  making  the  State  Convention  nominate  one  of 
his  followers  and  indorse  his  policy.  By  September  his  exer- 
tions had  begun  to  tell,  and  little  by  little  the  Democratic  press, 
hitherto  nearly  unanimous  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  changed 
front.  It  was  evident  that  General  Cass  and  his  machine  were 
too  strong  for  the  opposition  ;  but  when  the  Democratic  Con- 
vention met  on  September  19,  it  ^as  equally  evident  that  with- 
out Cass's  personal  exertions  the  Democratic  party  of  Michigan 
would  never  have  indorsed  him.  The  opposition  maintained  a 
A  Detroit  Advertiser,  June  4,  1849.  2  /&</.,  June  22,  1849. 


CASS  SUPPRESSES  FREE  SOIL  DEMOCRATS.       2OI 

steady  vote  of  57  to  Cass's  65  ;  consequently,  the  change  of  but 
five  votes  would  have  been  enough  to  alter  the  outcome.  On 
a  test  vote  of  65  to  59,  McClelland,  a  Free  Soil  Democrat,  was 
defeated  for  Governor  by  Barry,  Cass's  choice ;  and  when  one 
of  the  western  delegates  moved  the  Wilmot  Proviso  as  an 
amendment  to  the  regular  platform,  it  was  met  with  hisses  and 
cries  of  "  no  niggerism."  The  convention  then  adopted  some 
vague  anti-slavery-extension  resolutions,  and  adjourned.  Cass 
had  a  second  time  saved  his  credit  by  the  narrowest  of  mar- 
gins, and  through  his  own  extreme  exertions.1  Immediately 
after  this,  he  made  a  tour  of  the  State,  "  under  the  guise,"  said 
the  National  Era,  of  "  attending  county  agricultural  fairs,"  but 
really  for  the  purpose  of  whipping  local  Democratic  organiza- 
tions into  line.2  In  this  aim  he  was  eminently  successful,  the 
National  Era  enumerating  eight  Democratic  county  conventions, 
previously  Free  Soil  in  doctrine,  which  now  swung  over  to  Cass's 
position  of  non-interference  with  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

The  Free  Soil  party  had,  then,  nothing  to  hope  from  the 
Michigan  Democracy  so  long  as  Cass  was  at  its  head.  All 
that  it  could  expect  was  some  accession  from  the  defeated 
minority.  At  this  juncture  the  Whigs  reopened  the  coalition 
question.  Early  in  the  summer  their  candidate  for  Governor, 
Owen,  had  resigned,  and  the  Whig  managers  began  the  task  of 
getting  the  party  into  a  frame  of  mind  to  support  Littlejohn. 
In  this  action  the  Detroit  Advertiser  took  the  lead.  Finally  a 
Whig  convention  was  called  to  meet  directly  after  the  Demo- 
cratic convention  on  September  21.  The  Advertiser  said  :  "  It 
is  not  to  be  disguised  that  upon  the  subject  of  state  nomina- 
tions there  exists  at  the  present  time  a  wide  and  marked  differ- 
ence of  opinion  in  the  Whig  party.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  good 
Whigs  to  take  care  that  this  subject  be  there  harmonized  and 
set  at  rest."  3 

The  convention,  after  four  ballots,  nominated  F.  J.  Littlejohn, 
the  Free  Soil  candidate,  thereby  consummating  the  union  for 
which  the  Whig  leaders  had  been  so  anxious  ;  but  the  opposi- 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Sept.  22,  26,  1849. 

2  National  Era,  Oct.  25,  1829. 

8  Detroit  Advertiser,  Sept.  17,  1849. 


202  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

tion  which  this  action  aroused  was  alarming.  After  the  nomi- 
nation two  members  of  the  Central  Committee  resigned,  and 
others  broke  out  into  violent  language.  "  Who  is  Littlejohn?  " 
cried  Kellogg,  of  Allegan  County.  "  He  is  an  arrant  radical 
Loco-foco  —  I  say  he  is  a  Loco-foco  !  Is  this  a  Whig  Conven- 
tion? I  beg  of  you,  I  entreat,  nay,  I  pray,  do  not  nominate 
this  man."  Another  called  the  nomination  "  a  miserable  farce, 
too  barefaced  to  merit  contempt,"  "  a  bitter  and  nauseating 
draught,"  and  "  many  delegates  declared  openly  that  if  they 
voted  at  all  it  would  be  for  Barry.  It  was  a  choice  between 
Loco-focos."  l  Littlejohn  accepted  the  nomination  in  a  letter 
full  of  Free  Soil  doctrine,  but  without  anything  which  could 
by  any  remote  interpretation  be  called  Whiggism ;  and  Austin 
Blair,  the  Free  Soil  nominee  for  Lieutenant-Governor,  then  re- 
signed in  favor  of  Mr.  Coe.  From  the  outset,  however,  the 
chances  for  the  success  of  the  ticket  seemed  poor.  True,  the 
Democratic  party  was  torn  in  two  by  feuds  ;  but  the  prospect 
that  the  anti-Cass  men  would  vote  for  Littlejohn  was  lessened 
by  the  Whig  indorsement.  The  Whigs  also  showed  unmistak- 
ably that  the  coalition  had  failed  to  attract  them.  The  Detroit 
Advertiser  worked  heroically.  On  September  24  it  said :  "  By 
accepting  the  nomination  of  the  Whig  Convention,  Mr.  Little- 
john becomes  one  of  us,  so  far  at  least  as  our  state  interests  are 
implicated  "  ;  and  again :  "  It  is  useless  to  disguise  the  fact  that 
a  difference  of  opinion  and  feeling  has  existed  upon  this  ques- 
tion, but  it  is  now  full  time  ...  to  come  up  as  one  man  to  the 
rescue  of  the  ticket  ...  to  drag  down  into  the  grave  forever 
the  prospects  and  aspirations  of  Lewis  Cass,  the  traitor  to  the 
rights  and  feelings  of  those  whom  he  misrepresents."  Again 
it  said,  and  reiterated  the  statement:  "Recollect,  Whigs,  the 
only  source  to  which  our  opponents  look  for  success  in  the  ap- 
proaching canvass  is  to  your  disaffection."  It  would  be  inter- 
esting to  quote  more  from  the  Detroit  Advertiser  and  from  other 
papers,  such  as  the  Adrian  Expositor  and  the  Grand  River  Eagle, 
which,  though  "  frank  to  admit  that  there  were  some  Whigs  upon 
whose  ears  the  name  of  F.  J.  Littlejohn  would  grate  harshly,  yet 
upon  full  and  careful  consideration  .  .  .  became  thoroughly  con- 
1  Detroit  Free  Press,  Sept.  29,  1849. 


WHIG  AND  FREE  SOIL  FUSION  FAILS.  203 

vinced  that  the  policy  pursued  was  the  wisest  and  best." 1  It  is 
enough  to  say  that,  by  the  end  of  October,  party  discipline  and 
hatred  of  Cass  and  Barry  had  brought  every  Whig  newspaper  in 
the  State  to  give  its  support  to  the  ticket. 

In  local  matters,  fusion  between  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers  went 
on  at  a  rapid  pace.  In  at  least  eleven  counties  the  two  parties 
united  completely;  indeed,  the  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers  were 
so  inextricably  confused  that,  before  the  election,  the  Detroit 
Advertiser  printed  the  list  of  candidates  without  any  attempt  to 
distinguish  one  from  the  other.  In  the  Munroe  County  district 
the  regular  Democratic  convention,  —  by  advice  of  Cass,  it  is 
said,  —  made  an  attempt  to  get  Free  Soil  votes  by  nominating 
I.  P.  Christiancy ;  but  as  both  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers  joined  in 
the  nomination,  the  move  proved  fruitless.  One  of  the  humorous 
aspects  of  the  campaign  appears  in  the  way  in  which  Demo- 
cratic and  Whig  papers  regarded  coalition  in  other  States.  The 
Detroit  Free  Press,  while  loudly  applauding  "  Democratic  re- 
union" in  New  York  and  elsewhere,  thought  that  nothing  could 
explain  Free  Soil  and  Whig  fusion  except  "  an  unhallowed  thirst 
for  spoils";  and  the  Detroit  Advertiser,  in  the  intervals  of  its 
hard  work  to  get  Whigs  to  support  Littlejohn,  found  time  to 
condemn  the  "  venal  truckling  and  dicker  coalition  between  the 
Cass  Hunkers  and  Abolitionists  in  Vermont." 

The  election  came  off  in  November,  and  the  legislature 
showed  some  Whig  and  Free  Soil  gains ;  but  in  the  vote  for 
Governor  the  coalition  was  decisively  beaten.  The  vote  was 
as  follows  :  Democratic  —  Barry,  27,837  ;  Fusion — Littlejohn, 
23, 541. a  The  decrease  in  the  total  vote  as  compared  with 
that  of  1848  was  13,638.  The  explanation  is  probably  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  great  numbers  on  both  sides  refused  to 
vote  at  all,  including,  besides  the  usual  "off  year"  indifferents, 
Democrats  who  hated  Cass  yet  would  not  aid  the  Whigs,  and 
Whigs  who  found  it  "a  choice  between  Locofocos."  Plainly 
Whig  discontent  was  the  greater,  since  the  coalition  vote  was  less 
than  the  combined  Free  Soil  and  Whig  vote  of  1848  by  fully 
10,788,  while  the  Democratic  vote  had  fallen  off  but  2,850.  In 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Oct.  6,  1849. 

2  Partial  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1850,  and  in  Detroit  Advertiser. 


204  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

commenting  on  the  election,  the  Advertiser  undoubtedly  told  the 
truth  when  it  said :  "  Many  of  our  friends  looked  upon  a  union 
of  Whigs  with  the  Free  Soil  party  upon  any  terms  as  pregnant 
with  mischief,  and  as  having  a  direct  tendency  to  denationalize 
the  Whig  party.  Many  Whigs  who  were  in  favor  of  a  union 
disliked  the  terms  upon  which  the  union  was  effected,  thinking 
that  in  the  present  numerical  ratio  of  the  two  parties  too  much 
was  conceded  to  the  Free  Soil  party  on  the  ticket ;  while  still 
another  portion  was  actuated  by  a  strong  distaste  toward  the 
gubernatorial  candidate.  These  causes  combined  produced  a 
general  apathy  through  the  state  in  the  Whig  ranks  and  gave 
rise  to  open  opposition  ...  in  other  portions  of  our  state,  giv- 
ing to  our  opponents  an  easy  victory  and  a  large  majority."  1 

Irritation  was  inevitable  between  the  two  wings  of  the 
defeated  coalition,  and  lively  recriminations  were  exchanged. 
The  Old  Line  Democrats  gleefully  contributed  to  increase  the 
discontent  and  mortification  of  the  Whigs  by  constantly  assert- 
ing that  "  the  Democratic  Free  Soilers  would  not  coalesce  with 
the  Whigs,  but  went  for  Barry  and  Fenton ;  this  is  true  both  of 
the  rank  and  file  and  of  the  leaders";  2  until  the  Detroit  Adver- 
tiser, apparently  convinced,  said  bitterly  of  the  Free  Soil- 
ers :  "  If  the  non-extension  of  slavery  is  the  only  great,  ultimate 
object  for  which  that  party  was  organized,  it  becomes  more  and 
more  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  prosecution  of  that  object 
the  results  which  have  just  taken  place." 3  The  Peninsular 
Freeman,  on  the  other  hand,  said  :  "  The  Free  Soil  men  generally 
turned  out  and  voted  the  union  ticket,  while  large  numbers  of 
Whigs  absented  themselves  from  the  polls  and  hundreds  of  others 
voted  the  Barry  ticket  entire  or  the  union  ticket  with  the  names 
of  the  Free  Soil  candidates  erased."  4 

The  next  year  carried  on  the  struggle  between  Cass  and  his 
opponents  to  a  further  stage,  and  again  the  Free  Soilers,  in 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Nov.  9,  1849. 

2  Detroit  Free  Press,  Nov.  13,  1849.  8  Nov.  13,  1849. 

4  Quoted  in  National  Era,  Nov.  22,  1849.  The  election  returns  in  some 
degree  substantiate  this  latter  claim  ;  for  of  the  twenty-one  counties  where 
full  returns  are  found,  Coe  led  Littlejohn  in  seventeen  by  from  20  to  140 
votes,  having  a  net  lead  of  845  votes. 


CONTINUED   OPPOSITION  TO   CASS.  2O$ 

their  eagerness  to  oppose  him,  threw  away  their  consistency  as 
a  party.  In  the  legislature  of  1850,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of 
Cass's  friends,  Free  Soil  sentiment  was  still  strong  enough  to 
secure  in  February  the  passage  of  resolutions  instructing  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  to  favor  the  admission  of  California  as 
a  free  State.  By  March  the  efforts  of  Webster,  Clay,  and  Cass 
together  began  to  have  some  effect  on  public  sentiment  in 
Michigan,  long  before  they  were  felt  in  Ohio  or  in  the  other 
Northwestern  States;  and  although  a  resolution  formally  eulo- 
gizing Clay  and  Cass  for  their  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  Union  was 
defeated,  yet  Cass's  desires  were  finally  satisfied  by  the  passage 
of  resolutions  rescinding  the  Wilmot  Proviso  instructions  of  a 
year  before.  Cass  affected  to  consider  this  action  an  expression 
of  the  will  of  the  State ;  but  in  view  of  the  way  in  which  the 
resolution  was  passed  his  claim  seems  hardly  admissible.1  In 
the  House  the  vote  was  24  to  20,  with  twenty-two  absentees,  and 
in  the  Senate  the  resolution  was  carried  only  by  the  casting  vote 
of  the  Lientenant-Governor,  who  during  the  previous  election 
had  posed  as  a  Wilmot  Proviso  man.  "  The  vaunted  expression 
of  Michigan,"  said  a  correspondent  of  the  National  Era,  "  is  an 
expression  of  a  minority  of  the  Legislature  obtained  by  treach- 
ery and  deception."  2  In  the  spring,  elections  were  held  for  a 
Constitutional  Convention ;  and  in  a  few  places,  where  Demo- 
crats were  rash  enough  to  resolve  in  favor  of  the  rescinding 
resolution,  Whig  successes  were  the  result.  In  general,  how- 
ever, as  in  Ohio  and  Indiana,  the  Democrats  were  in  a  great 
majority,  the  delegation  standing  as  follows:  Democratic,  75; 
Whig,  1 8  ;  Free  Soil,  3.  This  convention  and  those  of  Indiana 
and  Ohio  will  be  considered  together  later. 

The  Free  Soil  party  of  Michigan  did  not  in  this  year  drop 
into  the  inanition  of  that  of  Indiana.  It  still  retained  spirit 
enough  to  hold  two  conventions,  one  in  May,  1850,  which 
resolved  against  Clay's  Compromise  and  urged  a  thorough 
organization  ;  and  another  in  September,  which  nominated  a 
full  ticket  for  Secretary  of  State,  auditors,  and  for  other 
minor  offices.  Still,  the  main  interest  of  the  Free  Soilers 

1  See  A.  C.  McLaughlin,  Lewis  Cass,  273. 

2  National  Era,  Sept.  5,  1850. 


206  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

was  not  in  the  general  State   election,  but  in  the  choice  of 
Congressmen. 

The  year  1850  was  to  set  the  Democratic  party  free  from  that 
anti-slavery  opposition  which  had  been  annoying  Cass  ever  since 
1848 ;  for  the  intimate  connection  of  Cass  with  the  Compromise 
measures  brought  his  followers  in  Michigan  into  line  before 
those  in  any  other  Northwestern  State.  As  the  Congressional 
campaign  came  on  in  the  summer,  the  Democratic  press  called 
for  conservative  nominations,  objecting  particularly  to  K.  S. 
Bingham,  who,  elected  in  1848  as  a  "  Free  Soil  Uass  man,"  had 
voted  in  Congress  entirely  without  regard  to  his  distinguished 
superior ;  and  to  Sprague,  chosen  by  Whig  and  Free  Soil 
fusion  in  1848,  and  now  a  strong  Wilmot  Proviso  man.  "We 
want  a  delegation  in  Congress,"  said  the  Jackson  Patriot,  "  who 
will  labor  for  the  nomination  of  our  great  statesman.  We  want 
no  more  Binghams  in  Congress."  "  The  delegation,"  said  the 
Kalamazoo  Gazette,  "  must  reflect  the  wishes  of  the  people  and 
coincide  in  sentiment  with  General  Cass  ;  must  be  both  his 
warm  personal  and  political  friends.  We  want  no  more 
Spragues  or  Binghams."  x  The  result  was  the  nomination  in 
all  three  districts  of  men  whom  the  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers 
considered  unmitigated  doughfaces.  In  the  Second  District, 
Stuart  was  renominated ;  in  the  First,  A.  W.  Buel,  one  of 
Cass's  intimate  friends;  and  in  the  Third,  General  Hascall,  in 
place  of  Bingham.  The  Whigs  were  quick  to  seize  their  oppor- 
tunity, and  to  these  candidates  opposed  Williams,  Penniman, 
and  Conger,  all  sound  Whigs  and  anti-slavery  men.  In  the 
Third  District,  K.  S.  Bingham  at  first  appeared  as  an  independ- 
ent candidate;  but  after  J.  S.  Conger,  the  Whig  nominee,  had 
written,  in  reply  to  questions  asked  by  a  Free  Soiler,  his  full 
acceptance  of  the  Free  Soil  creed  and  his  condemnation  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  Bingham  withdrew  in  his  favor.2  The  Free 
Soilers  made  no  nominations,  but  joined  the  Whigs  in  all  three 
districts.  The  Peninsular  Freeman  said  in  regard  to  Penniman : 
"  Their  support  of  him  will  be  given  freely,  cordially  and  with- 
out solicitation,  bargains  or  pledges  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Penniman. 

1  Quoted  in  Detroit  Advertiser,  Aug.  31,  1850. 

2  Ibid.,  Oct.  23,  1850. 


FREE  SOIL  DECA  Y  IN  MICHIGAN.  2O/ 

.  .  .  Decency  requires  the  election  of  Mr.  Penniman  and  the 
defeat  of  Mr.  Buel."  l 

The  campaign  that  followed  was  very  brisk ;  for  General 
Cass,  bound  to  secure  "  vindication,"  took  the  stump  himself 
in  Buel's  district.  For  once,  however,  popular  sentiment  found 
a  chance  to  express  itself  directly,  with  the  result  that  Buel 
and  Hascall  were  decisively  beaten  and  Stuart  barely  suc- 
ceeded.2 Had  the  whole  Democratic  ticket,  State  and  Congres- 
sional, been  defeated,  the  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers  could  not 
have  been  more  exultant  than  they  were  over  their  partial 
victory.  Buel  was  Cass's  right-hand  man  ;  he  had  voted  for 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  ;  and  Cass's  labors  on  the  stump  had 
not  saved  him !  In  this  election  the  Whigs  profited  more  by 
the  sins  of  their  opponents  than  by  their  own  virtues ;  for  their 
State  Convention  had  adopted  resolutions  in  favor  of  the  Com- 
promise, and  during  all  the  campaign  the  party  organs,  so 
zealous  in  appealing  to  the  Free  Soilers  a  year  before,  had 
ignored  the  existence  of  the  latter  party,  and  had  avoided  dis- 
cussion of  the  slavery  question  whenever  they  could.  After  the 
election  the  Whig  papers  expressly  denied  any  coalition,  and 
it  is  true  that  there  was  no  formal  union ;  nevertheless,  the 
Whigs  owed  their  success  to  Free  Soil  votes ;  but  the  Free  Soil 
party  of  Michigan  had  by  this  time  practically  disappeared, 
having  been  absorbed  in  the  Whig  ranks. 

The  Free  Soil  vote  for  Secretary  of  State  was  about  the  same 
as  the  Liberty  vote  of  1842,  —  Democratic,  32,372;  Whig,  26,331 ; 
Free  Soil,  2,228.  Probably  none  but  a  few  former  Liberty  men 
voted  the  ticket,  for  in  a  majority  of  the  counties  the  Free  Soil 
organizations  had  disappeared. 

In  Michigan,  Whig  coalition  had  proved  quite  as  deadly  to 
the  growth  of  the  Free  Soil  party  as  had  Democratic  coalition 

1  Quoted  in  National  Era,  Nov.  14,  1850. 

2  The  vote  this  year  was  as  follows  :  — 

Democratic.  Opposition. 

First  District                Buel            8,909  Penniman  10,741 

Second  District            Stuart       11,923  Williams  11,508 

Third  District               Hascall       8,427  Conger  8,623 
See  returns  in  Whig  Almanac,  1851. 


208  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

in  Ohio  and  Indiana;  but  unlike  the  Free  Soilers  in  the  latter 
States,  who  had  Chase,  Giddings,  and  Julian  to  represent  them 
in  Congress,  the  Michigan  anti-slavery  men  had  no  party  gains 
in  the  national  government  to  recompense  them  for  the  sacrifice 
of  party  consistency. 

Wisconsin  was  a  State  from  which  Free  Soilers  had  apparently 
very  much  to  hope.  In  the  fall  of  1848  they  had  one-fourth 
of  the  total  vote,  a  good  organization,  and  a  Representative  at 
Washington,  Charles  Durkee,  elected  from  the  southeastern  dis- 
trict. In  this  State,  however,  the  local  Democratic  and  Whig 
parties  were  both  as  anti-slavery  in  1848  as  the  Free  Soilers 
themselves,  and  now  after  the  election  they  began  to  insist 
with  increasing  emphasis  that  a  third  party  was  unnecessary. 
The  Wisconsin  Democrats  in  particular  began  to  clamor  for 
"reunion,"  with  a  vigor  surpassing  that  of  the  New  York 
Hunkers  themselves. 

In  the  legislature  of  1848-49  Wisconsin  had  to  choose  a 
Senator,  and  before  the  Free  Soilers  could  form  any  settled 
policy  they  found  themselves  in  the  midst  of  the  struggle.  The 
Democrats  had  a  nominal  majority  over  both  Whigs  and  Free 
Soilers ;  but  many  of  their  number  were  Wilmot  Proviso  men, 
and  by  a  coalition  of  some  sort  it  would  have  been  possible 
to  defeat  the  party  candidate.  Although  some  negotiations 
were  begun,  none  were  seriously  prosecuted ;  and,  after  a  little 
reluctance  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  two 
bodies  of  the  legislature  met  in  joint  convention  and  by  a  vote 
of  45  against  Whig  18,  Free  Soil  18,  scattering  4,  re-elected 
I.  P.  Walker,  chosen  in  the  preceding  June  as  a  strong  Wilmot 
Proviso  man.  Had  any  coalition  been  attempted  between 
WThigs  and  Free  Soilers,  it  would  have  met  the  same  fate  as  did 
that  in  Ohio ;  for  from  the  outset  two  men  elected  to  the  legis- 
lature as  Free  Democrats  acted  with  the  "  Old  Line,"  attending 
their  caucus  and  voting  for  Walker. 

When  the  State  Free  Soil  Convention  met  at  Madison  on 
January  n,  the  feeling  in  favor  of  Democratic  reunion  carried 
everything  before  it.  After  adopting  the  Buffalo  platform,  with 
sundry  additional  planks  in  favor  of  land  reform,  free  trade, 


FREE  SOIL  STRENGTH  IN  WISCONSIN.  209 

direct  taxation,  and  election  of  all  federal  officers  by  popular 
vote,  it  resolved  "  That  we  are  ready  to  unite  and  co-operate 
with  any  party  or  the  members  of  any  party  that  cordially 
approve  the  principles  embodied  in  the  foregoing  Resolu- 
tions."1 Moses  M.  Strong,  a  "regular"  Democrat,  then  ap- 
peared and  spoke  in  favor  of  union.  Nothing  could  have 
presented  a  more  striking  contrast  to  the  Liberty  convention 
which,  engineered  by  Booth,  Codding,  and  some  of  the  very  men 
most  prominent  in  this  Free  Soil  meeting,  had  less  than  nine 
months  before  refused  to  co-operate  on  the  basis  of  the  Wilmot 
Proviso.  The  Whig  elements  of  the  party  were  thoroughly 
alarmed  at  this  tendency  to  unite,  and  no  less  at  the  free  trade 
resolutions ;  but  their  occasional  protests  passed  unheeded,  and 
every  day  seemed  to  bring  the  Wisconsin  Free  Soilers  and 
Democrats  together,  to  the  joy  of  such  papers  as  the  Oshkosh 
True  Democrat.  "  We  have  a  strong  love  for  the  Democratic 
party,"  it  said,  "  and  after  having  left  it  we  look  with  yearning 
anxiety  to  see  it  assume  a  position  that  will  warrant  our  return 
to  its  support."  2 

The  legislature  adopted  by  large  majorities  a  set  of  instruc- 
tions, introduced  by  S.  D.  Hastings,  directing  their  Senators 
and  Representatives  to  vote  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso ;  but 
Senator  Walker,  although  elected  as  an  anti-slavery  man,  failed 
to  obey  them.  On  February  21  he  introduced  a  scheme  organ- 
izing the  new  Territories  without  providing  for  the  exclusion  of 
slavery,  and  at  once  he  became  the  mark  for  unsparing  con- 
demnation throughout  his  State.  So  great  offence  at  his 
treachery  was  felt  by  all  parties  in  the  legislature  that  reso- 
lutions of  censure,  requesting  him  to  resign,  were  passed  in  both 
Houses,  in  the  Senate  10  to  6,  in  the  House  42  to  9.  Shortly  after 
this  the  final  steps  were  taken  toward  Free  Soil  and  Democratic 
"  reunion,"  to  which  such  incidents  as  union  conventions  in 
Waukesha  and  Winnebago  Counties  had  been  pointing.  A 
conference  of  Free  Soil  and  Democratic  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature was  held  on  March  30,  1849,  at  which,  after  some  discus- 
sion, the  Buffalo  platform  was  unanimously  adopted  as  a  basis 

1  Madison  Express,  Jan.  16,  1849. 

2  Feb.  23,  1849. 

14 


210  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

of  action,  and  the  following  resolutions  in  substance  were  agreed 
on:  — 

"Whereas  it  appears  that  the  principles  held  by  the  great 
majority  of  the  Democratic  and  Free  Soil  parties  in  this  state 
are  the  same ; 

"  Resolved  that  we  recommend  that  the  State  Central  Com- 
mittees unite  in  calling  a  State  Convention  to  be  held  at  Madi- 
son September  5th. 

"  Resolved  ti\a\.  we  recommend  to  our  friends  in  all  parts  of 
the  state  to  abandon  their  separate  organizations." * 

The  Free  Soil  party  of  Wisconsin  was  running  its  career  at  a 
pace  calculated  to  startle  its  members.  Born  in  August,  1848, 
it  had  cast  10,000  votes  in  November,  and  now  in  April  of  1849, 
in  the  seventh  month  of  its  existence,  it  was  joined  to  the  "Old 
Line  in  one  grand  party  of  progress."  By  June,  however,  a  flaw 
appeared  in  the  new  union.  The  Free  Soil  Central  Committee 
had  invited  the  Democratic  Central  Committee  to  co-operate 
with  them  as  suggested  by  the  resolutions  of  March  30;  but 
for  nearly  a  month  the  latter  body  had  refused  to  make  any 
reply.  The  Democratic  members  of  the  legislature  had  gone 
rather  too  fast  for  their  constituents,  and  Old  Line  Democrats 
wished  to  pause.  At  the  end  of  June  a  reply  came  in  the  shape 
of  a  call  for  a  Democratic  State  Convention,  with  an  explanation 
appended  to  the  following  effect:  Union,  it  said,  was  desirable, 
but  for  the  Democratic  Committee  to  act  outside  its  own  party 
was  to  exceed  its  powers ;  moreover,  no  practical  method  had 
been  suggested ;  two  simultaneous  conventions  were  clumsy 
and  would  quarrel  over  officers;  one  convention  composed 
equally  of  the  two  parties  would  be  unfair  to  the  Demo- 
crats, who  outnumbered  the  Free  Soilers  one-half;  and,  finally, 
since  the  point  on  which  the  Free  Democrats  had  separated 
had  no  reference  to  State  issues,  they  might  as  well  express 
their  preferences  in  the  regular  Democratic  primaries,  for  "  a 
return  would  be  attended  with  no  degradation  of  feeling."  2  This 
proposal  was  a  dash  of  cold  water  which  left  the  bewildered 
Free  Soilers  gasping.  The  dream  of  power  in  which  most  of 

1  Milwaukee  Wisconsin,  April  11,  1849. 

2  Ibid.,  July  5,  1849. 


DEMOCRATS  OUTWIT  FREE  S 'OILERS.  21 1 

them  had  been  indulging  since  April  was  rudely  shattered  by 
the  information  that  they  could,  if  they  chose,  "  rejoin "  the 
Democratic  party  as  individuals,  but  not  as  an  organization. 
Unless  they  proposed  to  lose  their  identity,  there  was  nothing 
to  do  but  to  call  a  convention  of  their  own.  This  they  did, 
appointing  it  for  September  7,  two  days  after  the  Democratic 
meeting.  "  We  are  coolly  told  that  we  went  off  without  reason," 
said  the  Kenosha  Telegraph,  "  and  the  most  we  can  ask  is  the 
privilege  of  coming  back  unquestioned.  We  see  but  one  course 
for  the  Free  Democrats  to  pursue.  Hold  their  Convention,  make 
their  nominations,  and  elect  their  ticket  if  they  can."  1 

During  the  summer  of  1849  the  Free  Soil  party  of  Wisconsin 
was  in  a  chaotic  state,  with  the  Liberty  element  eager  to  act 
alone,  the  Whig  members  disgusted  at  the  coalition  negotiations 
and  the  free-trade  platform,  and  the  Democratic  members  torn 
between  irritation  at  the  trickery  of  the  Democratic  Central 
Committee  and  a  strong  desire  to  rejoin  their  old  associates  if 
they  consistently  could.  In  many  of  the  counties  local  fusion 
took  place,  the  union  Democratic  meeting  choosing  delegates 
sometimes  to  one  State  convention,  sometimes  to  both,  in- 
structing them  in  nearly  every  case  to  work  for  harmony.  On 
September  5  the  Democratic  convention  met,  and  although 
composed,  as  the  Free  Soil  organs  claimed,  of  office-seekers 
and  their  particular  friends,  it  showed  much  political  sagacity. 
It  nominated  a  full  set  of  irreproachable  Old  Line  Democrats, 
and  then,  to  emphasize  the  absorption  of  the  Free  Soilers,  it 
adopted  the  platform  recommended  in  the  union  resolutions  of 
March  30.  Except  by  a  few  delegates,  no  notice  was  taken  of 
the  Free  Soilers ;  consequently  the  feelings  of  the  convention 
of  that  party,  which  met  two  days  later,  were  those  of  almost 
unmixed  bitterness.  They  saw  the  trap  into  which  they  had  run 
by  their  offer  to  coalesce  with  any  party  adopting  their  prin- 
ciples ;  and  the  Democratic  acceptance  of  their  offer  left  them 
no  way  of  escape. 

Although  the  Free  Soilers  had  called  a  "union"  convention, 
there  were  present  only  a  few  more  than  forty  delegates,  of 
whom  eighteen  had  already  attended  the  Democratic  meeting. 

1  July  6,  1849- 


212  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

These  latter,  under  the  leadership  of  A.  W.  Randall  and  A.  E. 
Elmore,  moved  that,  since  the  Democrats  had  adopted  the 
platform  of  the  Free  Soilers,  the  latter  should  appoint  a  com- 
mittee to  question  the  Democratic  nominees,  and  then  adjourn; 
but  this  course  involved  greater  self-effacement  than  the  major- 
ity of  those  present  could  endure.  It  was  resolved,  25  to  18,  that 
this  was  a  union  convention;  and,  28  to  13,  that  it  proceed  to 
nominate;  whereat  the  minority  withdrew.1  The  remaining 
handful  of  Free  Soilers  nominated  a  ticket  largely  of  Barn- 
burners, headed  by  N.  Devvey,  the  Democratic  nominee,  and 
attacked  the  Democrats'  hypocrisy  in  nominating  Old  Hunkers 
upon  a  Free  Democratic  platform ;  but  this  ground  was  almost 
immediately  cut  from  under  their  feet  by  the  action  of  the 
seceding  delegates.  That  faction,  continuing  to  act  together, 
had  addressed  each  of  the  Democratic  candidates,  and  each,  in 
answer  to  a  specific  question,  had  declared  that  he  was  in  favor 
of  the  platform  upon  which  he  was  nominated,  and  that  he  saw 
no  difference  between  it  and  the  Free  Soil  platform.2  Thus 
completely  outwitted,  the  Free  Soil  party  approached  election 
day  without  a  leg  to  stand  on,  presenting  to  the  public  merely 
the  spectacle  of  a  band  of  men  who,  denied  the  spoils  for  which 
they  had  hoped,  refused  to  live  up  to  their  promises.  In  all 
the  history  of  political  manoeuvring  in  the  Northwest,  there 
is  nothing  to  surpass  the  consummate  ease  and  skill  with  which 
Wisconsin  Democrats  in  this  year  took  the  Free  Soilers  at 
their  word,  deprived  them  of  logical  consistency,  and  put  them 
in  the  wrong. 

During  these  intrigues  the  Wisconsin  Whig  party  had  been 
keeping  on  its  own  way,  filled,  of  course,  with  holy  horror  at 
the  corrupt  coalition,  but  in  the  main  enjoying  heartily  the 
Democratic  quarrels.  "  Go  it,"  said  the  Wisconsin  Express, 
when  there  was  a  prospect  of  a  Democratic  Union  Convention  ; 
"  we  shall  like  to  see  these  elements  of  corruption  come  to- 
gether;  the  effervescence  would  be  beautiful."3  On  September 
1 1  the  Whig  State  Convention  nominated  a  set  of  regular  party 

1  Kenosha  Telegraph,  Sept.  21,  1849. 

2  Milwaukee  Wisconsin,  Oct.  20,  1849. 

8  Madison  Wisconsin  Express,  July  17,  1849. 


DECLINE   OF   WISCONSIN  FREE  SOIL   PARTY.       213 

men,  passed  resolutions  indorsing  Taylor,  and  also  demanded 
"  the  invariable  application  of  the  Anti-Slavery  clause  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787  to  every  law  organizing  a  new  Territory  or 
creating  a  new  State."  1  Such  a  platform  offered  an  attractive 
refuge  to  Whig  Free  Soilers,  who  were  disgusted  at  the  coali- 
tion fiasco ;  and  there  is  little  doubt  that,  parallel  with  deser- 
tions to  the  Democratic  party,  a  slight  exodus  of  returning 
Whigs  took  place  from  the  Free  Soil  ranks.  Before  the  election 
day,  to  complete  the  Free  Soil  discredit,  one  member  of  their 
Central  Committee  resigned,  "  seeing  no  necessity  for  a  separate 
organization  ; "  and  Dewey  and  one  other  candidate  refused  to 
run  on  the  Free  Soil  ticket.  Their  places  were  filled  by 
W.  Chase  and  E.  D.  Holton  respectively,  through  a  mass  con- 
vention on  October  n. 

The  vote  in  November  was  as  follows:  Democratic  —  Dewey, 
16,649;  Whig  — Collins,  11,317;  Free  Soil  — Chase,  3,761.2  As 
compared  with  the  preceding  year,  the  Democrats  had  gained 
1,648,  the  Whigs  had  lost  2,430,  and  the  Free  Soilers  6,657. 
If  the  parties  had  maintained  their  proportional  strength,  the 
Democrats  and  Whigs  would  have  lost  about  2,700  apiece,  and 
the  Free  Soilers  2,000;  as  it  was,  the  Democratic  gains  indicate 
that  about  4,000  Free  Soilers  voted  the  Democratic  ticket,  about 
200  the  Whig,  and  that  some  did  not  vote  at  all. 

By  these  interesting  operations  the  Free  Soil  party  of  Wis- 
consin had  at  the  end  of  1849  reduced  itself  to  a  condition  of 
almost  complete  helplessness.  Its  press,  broken-spirited  and 
dejected,  knew  not  how  to  meet  the  exultant  assertions  of 
Whigs  and  Democrats  that  the  Free  Soil  party  was  dead  and 
would  never  run  another  independent  ticket.  "  What  shall  the 
Free  Soilers  do?"  asked  the  Kenosha  Telegraph.  "At  present 
it  strikes  us  the  Free  Soilers  have  nothing  to  do  except  simply 
to  keep  an  eye  upon  the  dominant  party.  It  is  not  at  all  im- 
portant to  us  who  has  our  thunder,  so  it  is  used,  and  used  effec- 
tively. Let  us  quietly  observe  the  dominant  party."  3  In  the 
next  year  (1850)  the  party  made  no  sign  of  life  except  through 
three  newspapers  which  still  remained  faithful,  and  through  the 

1  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Sept.  17,  1849. 

2  Vote  in  Whig  Almanac,  1850.  *  Nov.  30,  1849. 


214  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

few  local  conventions  which  coalition  had  not  swallowed  up. 
In  the  Legislature  nothing  of  note  occurred  except  the  fusion 
of  Free  Soil  and  Democratic  Senators  "  under  a  call  for  all 
those  in  favor  of  the  Resolutions  of  the  Democratic  State  Con- 
vention," l  and  later  the  unanimous  passage  of  resolutions 
instructing  Senators  Dodge  and  Walker  to  vote  for  the  Wilmot 
Proviso. 

As  in  Michigan  and  Ohio,  the  political  interest  of  the  State 
centred,  in  1850,  in  the  election  of  Congressmen.  In  the  Second 
District,  where  Orsamus  Cole,  the  Whig  incumbent,  had  an 
excellent  anti-slavery  record,  and  where  Eastman,  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate,  pledged  himself  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
no  Free  Soil  nomination  was  made,  nor  was  any  party  action 
taken.  In  the  Third  District,  J.  D.  Doty,  like  Bingham  in  Michi- 
gan, was  thrown  over  by  the  Democrats  on  account  of  his  Free 
Soil  action  in  Congress.  After  a  short  time  Doty  came  out  as 
an  independent  anti-slavery  candidate,  and  as  such  received  the 
enthusiastic  support  of  both  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers.  The 
campaign  in  his  district  became  extremely  embittered;  for 
Doty  carried  with  him  five  bolting  Democratic  journals,  and  the 
personalities  and  abuse  which  passed  between  these  papers 
and  their  old  associates  were  of  full  frontier  flavor.  It  was  in 
the  First  District,  however,  that  the  Free  Soil  sentiment  of  the 
State  centred.  As  the  Western  Reserve  in  Ohio  was  now  stand- 
ing faithful  and  alone,  so  the  southeastern  counties  of  Wiscon- 
sin —  Walworth,  Racine,  and  Kenosha  —  alone  kept  up  Free 
Soil  organizations,  and  it  was  their  absorbing  purpose  to  re-elect 
Charles  Durkee.  In  the  hope  that  his  good  record  in  Congress 
might  procure  him  an  unopposed  return,  no  formal  nomination 
was  made ;  but  a  petition  of  a  thousand  names  was  sent,  urging 
him  to  stand.  To  this  request  he  acceded  in  September.  Some 
Free  Soilers  undoubtedly  hoped  that  the  Democratic  machine 
would  indorse  him ;  but  when  the  Democratic  district  conven- 
tion met  and  nominated  A.  E.  Elmore,  one  of  the  seceders  from 
the  union  convention  of  a  year  before,  the  last  flickering  hope 
of  Democratic  and  Free  Soil  coalition  died  out.  The  Walworth 
County  Free  Soilers  resolved,  "  That  the  course  of  the  leaders 
1  Kenosha  Telegraph,  Jan.  18,  1850;  National  Era,  Jan.  31,  1850. 


WISCONSIN  WHIGS  SUPPORT  DURKEE.  21$ 

of  the  old  Democratic  party  of  this  State  subsequent  to  the  last 
State  Convention  ...  in  their  marked  hostility  to  the  re-election 
of  Messrs.  Doty  and  Durkee,"  shows  that  "  the  adoption  of  the 
Free  Soil  party  platform  in  the  Convention  of  September  5th 
last  was  faithless  and  hypocritical  .  .  .  and  it  will  be  the  fault 
of  the  Free  Democrats  themselves  if  they  shall  hereafter  be 
deceived  by  any  reiterations  of  the  same  professions."1 

Now  happened  an  unexpected  piece  of  good  fortune.  The 
Whig  papers  began  to  shower  praise  on  Durkee;  and  when 
the  local  Whig  conventions  nominated  J.  H.  Tweedy  for  Con- 
gress, that  gentleman  instantly  resigned  in  Durkee's  favor.  As 
in  Michigan,  this  line  of  action  met  with  strenuous  opposition ; 
and  when  a  second  Whig  convention  adjourned  without  nominat- 
ing, a  public  meeting  was  held  in  Milwaukee  to  censure  this 
conduct  as  an  abandonment  of  Whig  principles.  The  Whig 
leaders,  however,  with  the  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Madison  Express, 
and  State  Journal,  fell  upon  the  protestors  with  such  energy 
that  the  revolt  was  nipped  in  the  bud.  Tweedy  "  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  avow  a  decided  preference  for  Mr.  Durkee  as  an  upright, 
honest,  reliable  man.  He  characterized  the  resolutions  [of 
censure]  as  insidious,  dastardly,  and  uncalled  for."2  Through 
the  vigorous  support  of  the  Whig  papers,  the  preference  of 
many  Free  Soil  Democrats  for  Elmore  over  Durkee  was  coun- 
teracted, and  in  the  election  the  latter  gained  a  well-earned 
victory.3 

Thus,  by  the  end  of  1850,  the  Free  Soil  party  in  Wisconsin 
was  indistinguishable  as  a  separate  organization,  except  in  the 
southeastern  counties.  There  anti-slavery  sentiment  insured  the 
return  of  a  real  Free  Soiler  to  Congress ;  but  even  this  success 
was  due  to  Whig  help.  In  1849  coalition  had  dragged  the  Free 
Soil  party  into  the  dust,  where  it  lay  during  1850;  but  so  long 

1  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Oct.  8,  1850.  2  Ibid.,  Oct.  28,  1850. 

8  The  vote  in  the  three  districts  was  as  follows :  — 

Democratic.  Opposition. 

First  District  Elmore    5,574  Durkee    7,512 

Second  District  Eastman  7,262  Cole         5,852 

Third  District  Hobart     5,374  Doty       11,159 
See  Whig  Almanac,  1851. 


2l6  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

as  coalition  could  secure  the  return  of  a  man  like  Durkee,  Free 
Soil  prospects  in  Wisconsin  were  by  no  means  in  total  eclipse. 

The  Free  Soil  party  of  Iowa,  diminutive  as  it  was,  in  com- 
parison with  those  of  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  held  a  similar 
balance  of  power,  and  consequently  in  1849  found  itself  involved 
in  coalition.  Little  was  to  be  hoped  from  the  local  Democratic 
party.  Its  members  were  of  the  same  stamp  as  those  of 
"Egypt"  and  of  Missouri,  and  its  record  in  the  legislature  and 
in  Congress  had  been  uniformly  such  as  would  seem  to  put 
coalition  out  of  the  question.  Nevertheless,  in  some  localities 
efforts  were  made  to  bring  the  two  "  Democratic "  parties  to- 
gether,1 and  there  is  reason  to  think  that  local  fusion  did  take 
place,  —  a  circumstance  merely  indicating  how  much  stronger 
was  the  feeling  for  "  Democracy  "  than  for  anti-slavery. 

In  Henry  County,  the  centre  of  anti-slavery  sentiment,  a  union 
ticket  was  formed  to  overthrow  Whig  control,  which  the  Mt, 
Pleasant  Free  Soil  paper  called  "  the  intolerable  domination  of 
truckling  doughfaces."  2  In  Washington  County  the  Old  Line 
Democrats  placed  three  active  Free  Soilers  upon  the  county 
ticket;  but  the  Free  Soil  convention,  though  it  ratified  these 
nominations,  declined  to  complete  the  union  by  accepting  the 
other  Democratic  nominees.  Some  hopes  were  occasionally 
expressed  that  the  State  Democratic  party  might  "  reunite  " 
with  the  Free  Soilers ;  and  it  was  asserted  by  the  Capitol  Re- 
porter that  Kelsey,  the  editor  of  the  Iowa  Free  Democrat, 
attended  the  State  Convention  on  June  28  with  hopes  of  mak- 
ing some  "  deal."  However  that  may  have  been,  the  action  of 
the  Democrats,  who  deprecated  sectional  parties  and  deemed  it 
"  inexpedient  to  add  to  the  further  distraction  of  the  public 
mind  by  demanding  in  the  name  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  what  is 
already  amply  secured  by  the  laws  of  the  land,"  3  settled  defini- 
tively that  no  honorable  coalition  could  take  place  between  the 
two  Democracies. 

The  local  Whigs  were  on  a  different  footing ;  for  in  Iowa  their 
party  contained  whatever  anti-slavery  sentiment  was  to  be  found 

1  National  Era,  July  26,  1849.         2  Iowa  Free  Democrat,  July  31,  1849. 
8  National  Era,  Aug.  16,  1849. 


UNION  OF  IOWA    WHIGS  AND  FREE  SOILERS.     2 1/ 

outside  of  the  little  band  of  Liberty  men.  Its  members  in  the 
legislature  frequently  spoke  and  voted  in  favor  of  anti-slavery 
petitions  and  measures  ;  and  although  it  had  supported  Taylor 
and  the  Mexican  War,  and  disclaimed,  as  did  the  Whig  party 
in  most  of  the  Northwestern  States,  any  sympathy  with  abo- 
litionists, it  seemed  to  furnish  the  most  promising  ally  to  the 
Free  Soil  body.  The  Free  Soil  State  Convention,  early  in  1849, 
nominated  for  State  offices  two  Free  Soilers,  and  W.  H.  Allison, 
a  Whig,  whose  record  in  the  legislature  was  very  creditable 
from  an  antislavery  point  of  view.  On  June  29  the  Whig  State 
Convention  adopted  a  solid  Free  Soil  plank,  and  concurred  in 
the  nomination  of  Allison,1  to  the  intense  scandal  of  every 
Loco-foco  in  Iowa,  and  of  very  many  "  Silver-gray "  Whigs. 
An  avalanche  of  billingsgate  descended  upon  the  "disgusting 
coalition,"  the  "amalgamation,"  the  "marriage  of  Whiggery  to 
abolitionism,"  the  "  sale  of  the  abolitionists  to  the  Whigs  "  ; 
while  the  Free  Democrat,  on  the  other  side,  justified  the  partial 
fusion  as  "  manly  and  independent,"  and  the  Whig  and  Reporter 
held  up  to  scorn  the  "  ribald  abuse  and  vulgar  blackguardism  " 
of  the  Democrats.2  On  the  face  of  things,  the  coalition  seemed 
to  have  a  fair  chance  of  success,  for  according  to  the  vote  of 
1848  the  Free  Soilers  held  the  balance  of  power;  but  the 
election  of  August  showed  as  complete  a  fiasco  as  did  the 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  coalition  in  Michigan  two  months  later.3 
Just  what  caused  the  failure  of  the  arrangement  is  not  obvi- 
ous. Very  probably  Free  Soilers  of  Democratic  antecedents 
were  so  repelled  by  the  nomination  of  a  Whig  that  they  pre- 
ferred to  act  with  their  old  party,  in  spite  of  its  recent  action ; 
it  is  also  likely  that  some  "  Silver-gray "  Whigs  bolted  their 
own  ticket  out  of  dislike  to  Allison's  anti-slavery  record ;  so 
that  (as  some  dissatisfied  Free  Soilers  claimed  openly)  the 

1  National  Era,  July  26,  1849. 

2  Iowa  Free  Democrat,  July  31,  1849. 
8  The  vote  stood  as  follows  :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Free  Soil. 

Secretary  Williams    12,154        Allison      10,978 

Public  Works       Patterson  11,672        McKean  10,960        Dayton  564 
See  Whig  Almanac,  1851. 


2l8  COLLAPSE  IN  NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 

defeat  of  the  ticket  was  due  to  Whig  treachery.3  Probably 
both  causes  operated.  In  the  part  of  the  ticket  where  there  was 
no  coalition  we  see  the  usual  results;  for  the  Free  Soil  vote 
of  1,126  in  1848  was  reduced  exactly  one  half.  After  such  a 
defeat,  with  numbers  shrunk  to  a  mere  handful,  it  is  surprising 
to  find  that  the  Free  Soilers  of  Iowa  continued  their  activity 
into  the  next  year. 

In  the  early  months  of  1850  there  was  some  talk  of  renewing 
the  coalition.  W.  P.  Clarke,  a  leading  Free  Soiler  of  Whig 
antecedents,  wrote  a  letter  urging  that  the  two  parties  were 
practically  agreed  on  anti-slavery  matters,  and  ought  to  co-oper- 
ate against  their  common  enemy,  the  Democrats ;  but  the  recep- 
tion given  to  the  letter  showed  that  the  time  for  fusion  had  gone 
by.  The  Iowa  Republican  admitted  that  the  two  parties  occu- 
pied the  same  ground,  and  spoke  favorably,  although  in  general 
terms,  of  the  union  of  all  true  men  ;  but  the  M us catine  Journal ^ 
representing  the  conservative  Whigs,  said  sharply:  "We  are 
decidedly  opposed  to  having  anything  to  do  with  the  Free  Soil- 
ers and  will  not  support  any  amalgamated  ticket.  Let  us  have 
a  Whig  ticket  or  none  at  all."  2  The  Democrats  looked  on  with 
jeering  indifference,  the  Iowa  State  Gazette  remarking  that  "  to 
the  Democrats  these  movements  are  important  only  as  passing 
events  of  the  day  .  .  .  Experience  proves  that  such  coalitions 
frequently  detract  from  the  efficient  strength  of  a  party  instead 
of  serving  to  augment  it.  A  striking  illustration  of  this  truth 
was  furnished  by  the  result  of  the  last  election  and  ...  an 
equally  emphatic  condemnation  awaits  any  attempt  that  may  be 
made  in  August  next  to  unite  the  Whig  and  abolition  forces."3 

Thus  the  Free  Soilers  went  on  by  themselves.  Local  conven- 
tions in  Linn,  Henry,  Lee,  and  other  counties,  passed  coura- 
geous resolutions;  on  May  8,  1850,  a  State  Convention,  led  by 
W.  P.  Clarke  and  S.  L.  Howe,  nominated  a  full  ticket,4  and  by 
August  there  were  two  Congressional  tickets  in  the  field.  The 
manner  in  which  these  nominations  were  received  led  the  True 

1  Letter  in  Indiana  True  Democrat,  March  13,  1850. 

2  Quoted  in  Iowa  Free  Democrat,  Jan.  15,  1850. 
8  Quoted  Ibid.,  Jan.  22,  1850. 

4  Iowa  True  Democrat,  May  28,  1850,  same  paper  as  the  Free  Democrat. 


DECAY  OF  IOWA   FREE  SOIL  PARTY.  2 19 

Democrat  to  comment  on  the  transparent  hypocrisy  of  the  old 
parties:  "  The  Cassite  glories  in  our  spunk  in  nominating  a  Con- 
gressional candidate,  but  emphatically  condemns  the  county 
nomination ;  whilst  the  Taylorite  rejoices  in  our  county  nomi- 
nation, but  utterly  abhors  the  Congressional.  We  hope,"  it  con- 
cluded, "  we  hereafter  shall  be  able  to  maintain  moral  stamina 
enough  to  resist  all  machinations  of  all  the  political  demagogues 
of  all  the  political  parties  who  approach  us  with  their  fraudu- 
lent and  delusive  temptations."  1  Great  efforts  at  organization 
were  made;  the  party  held  three  successive  State  Conven- 
tions ;  but  in  spite  of  an  active  campaign,  the  result  of  the 
election  was  disheartening.2  The  Free  Soil  party  was  evi- 
dently reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  and  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances could  hope  for  no  more  than  600  votes  at  the 
outside.  Nevertheless,  the  Iowa  abolitionists  refused  to  admit 
their  failure;  and  immediately  after  the  election  the  party 
showed  its  persistence  by  holding  a  State  Convention  at  Yel- 
low Springs,  on  October  30,  which  condemned  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  and  planned  for  further  organization.8 

The  Iowa  Free  Soil  party,  it  is  evident,  lost  the  greater  part 
of  the  Barnburner,  or  Democratic,  elements  in  1849,  Just  as 
happened  in  the  other  States  ;  but  the  remainder  showed  an 
elasticity  under  defeat,  and  a  persistence  in  organization,  quite 
different  from  the  complete  depression  into  which  the  party  fell 
in  every  other  State  except  Ohio.  The  reason  for  this  elas- 
ticity lay  in  the  fact  that  the  Iowa  Free  Soilers  were  practically 
all  abolitionists ;  consequently  their  activity  in  1850  should  not 
be  compared  with  the  almost  total  collapse  of  their  Illinois  and 
Wisconsin  neighbors  in  that  year.  It  finds  its  parallel  in  the 
Liberty  Party  action  of  1841-44  in  the  latter  States,  and  ex- 
hibits the  same  courage,  persistency,  and  zeal  which  that  party 
had  shown  before  it  was  weakened  by  years  of  disappointment. 

1  Iowa  True  Democrat,  June  25,  1850. 

2  The  figures  are:  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Free  Soil. 

For  Governor  13,192  11,082  574 

For  Congress  13,182  n>7io  479 

See  Whig  Almanac,  1851. 

8  National  Era^  Jan.  23,  1851. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

CAUSES   OF  THE   FREE   SOIL   COLLAPSE. 
1849-1850. 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  take  a  general  view  of  the 
years  1849-50  in  the  Northwest.  It  is  obvious  that  beneath 
the  various  forms  of  political  surface  movements  in  the  six 
States  ran  a  common  undercurrent  which,  by  the  end  of  1850, 
had  either  engulfed  the  Free  Soilers  into  the  mass  of  the  old 
parties,  or  had  left  a  small  remnant  stranded  high  and  dry,  in 
much  the  same  situation  as  that  of  the  Liberty  men  of  four 
years  before. 

The  causes  of  this  phenomenon  have  been  suggested  incident- 
ally in  connection  with  the  various  States,  but  they  may  here  be 
summed  up.  The  first  reason  why  the  Free  Soilers  desired 
coalition  lay  in  the  character  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement. 
In  1848,  in  every  Northwestern  State,  the  men  in  the  forefront 
of  the  new  party  had  been  prominent,  ardent  partisans  and 
practical  politicians,  who  aimed  at  electing  their  candidates, — 
Giddings,  Hamlin,  Riddle,  Randall,  and  others,  in  the  Western 
Reserve;  Christiancy,  Littlejohn,  Blair,  in  Michigan  ;  Ellsworth, 
Cravens,  Wright,  in  Indiana ;  Hoyne,  Arnold,  Ogden,  in  Illi- 
nois ;  Marshall  M.  Strong,  Chase,  Randall,  Elmore,  in  Wis- 
consin. These  men  and  many  others  were  active  Whigs  and 
Democrats  up  to  the  time  of  the  revolt,  and  most  of  them  had 
been  or  were  office-holders.  With  such  men  the  attainment  of 
office  as  an  immediate  end  is  of  vastly  greater  importance  than 
the  building  up  of  a  party  by  separation,  agitation,  and  appeal 
to  popular  sentiment.  The  best  way  to  affect  the  popular  mind, 
in  their  opinion,  was  to  get  some  public  representative.  If  such 


THE    YEARS  18^9-50  A    CK1SIS.  221 

a  result  could  be  gained  by  separate  action,  well  and  good ;  but 
if  only  by  coalition,  what  did  it  matter,  provided  that  principles 
were  not  violated? 

Secondly,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  years  1848-50 
were  a  period  of  crisis.  All  eyes  were  on  Congress,  from  its 
meeting  in  December,  1848,  until  the  final  consummation  of  the 
Compromise  in  the  autumn  of  1850.  So  long  as  the  question 
of  slavery  in  the  Territories  was  undecided,  while  California 
clamored  for  admission,  while  the  South  threatened  secession, 
and  Clay,  Webster,  and  Cass  pleaded  for  compromise,  it  was  ob- 
viously of  the  first  importance  to  get  the  best  antislavery  men 
possible  elected  to  places  where  they  could  vote  on  the  main 
question;  and  it  was  no  time  to  split  hairs  over  the  propriety 
of  coalition,  if  that  means  would  serve  to  secure  this  result. 
With  such  ideas  the  Liberty  men  were  not  familiar ;  but  when 
brought  to  the  point  few  of  them  flinched.  In  Ohio,  in  fact, 
Chase  outstripped  his  ex-Whig  associates  in  his  interpretation 
of  the  new  doctrine. 

Wherever  the  Free  Soilers  were  willing  to  coalesce,  the  old 
parties  as  a  general  rule  met  them  more  than  half-way.  From 
the  election  of  1848  down  to  the  very  passage  of  the  Compro- 
mise of  1850,  Democratic  and  Whig  leaders,  papers,  and  con- 
ventions avowed  the  Wilmot  Proviso  as  an  integral  part  of  their 
creed.  At  no  time  in  any  State  could  the  Free  Soilers  claim 
to  be  the  only  anti-slavery  party.  In  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Wis- 
consin both  parties  asserted  Free  Soil  principles ;  and  in  Illinois 
the  local  Whig  and  Democratic  organizations  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  State  proclaimed  anti-slavery  doctrines.  In  Michigan 
only  did  the  Democratic  party  in  1850  drop  its  Free  Soil  atti- 
tude, and  even  then  two  of  its  Congressional  candidates,  Has- 
call  and  Stuart,  wrote  letters  advocating  the  non-extension  of 
slavery.1 

What  determined  the  direction  of  coalition?  To  some  extent, 
the  prepossessions  of  the  politicians  who  led  the  new  party.  A 
majority  in  the  Northwest,  outside  of  Ohio,  were  former  Demo- 
crats, and  when  their  old  party  offered  them  the  same  principles 
as  the  new  one,  the  desire  to  return  was  inevitable.  A  still 
1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Nov.  7,  1850. 


222  CAUSES  OF  THE   COLLAPSE. 

more  powerful  motive  lay  in  the  general  tendency  existing 
toward  Democratic  coalition.  The  Buffalo  nomination  and  plat- 
form had  been  a  combination,  in  which  Liberty  men  had  the 
platform,  Democrats  the  candidate;  and  now,  after  1848,  the 
influence  of  the  New  York  Barnburners  continued.  They  were 
and  continued  to  be  Democrats,  regarding  themselves  as  the 
only  legitimate  New  York  State  organization;  and  when,  in 
1849,  negotiations  began  between  them  and  the  Old  Line 
Democrats,  the  example  powerfully  affected  other  sections. 
Throughout  the  Northwest,  local  ex-Democratic  Free  Soilers 
found  themselves  adopting  the  Barnburners'  vocabulary,  and 
freely  speaking  of  "  Democratic  reunion,"  though  a  few  months 
before  they  had  been  urging  each  other  to  "  fight  on,  fight  ever, 
till  victory  shall  crown  our  cause." 

To  this  tendency  was  added  a  strong  feeling  that  the  Demo- 
crats, as  the  party  beaten  in  1848,  were  on  the  point  of  taking 
anti-slavery  ground.  "  Our  opinion  is,"  said  the  Oshkosh  True 
Democrat,  "  that  there  are  to  be  only  two  parties  in  the  state, 
the  Free  Democratic  and  the  Taylor;  that  the  latter  will  be 
composed  of  conservatives  from  the  Cass  Democratic  and  Whig 
parties,  while  the  former  will  embody  the  radicals  of  all  parties 
and  be  largely  in  the  majority."  l  "  The  Democracy  of  the 
Free  States,"  said  the  Ann  Arbor  True  Democrat,  "  are  released 
from  all  further  responsibility  of  protecting  the  supposed  rights 
of  the  slaveholders  against  the  growing  encroachments  of  Free- 
dom. The  Taylor  party  have  taken  their  place.  The  Demo- 
cratic masses  will  now  join  the  standard  of  Freedom  and 
Progress.  .  .  .  The  Buffalo  platform  is  the  only  firm  standing 
ground  amid  the  general  wreck  of  old  worn-out  questions ;  .  .  . 
the  mass  of  the  party  will  adopt  these  principles  and  become 
one  with  us.  ...  All  our  institutions  must  be  made  thoroughly 
Democratic."  z 

Moreover,  the  influence  of  names,  pure  and  simple,  should 
not  be  ignored.  The  name,  "  Free  Democracy,"  was  in  itself 
a  strong  plea  for  Democratic  union;  for  if  the  Old  Line  De- 
mocracy should  become  "  Free  "  by  adopting  proper  principles, 
where  was  the  difference  between  the  two  parties?  The  as- 
1  March  23,  1849.  *  Nov-  l6,  1848. 


INFLUENCE  OF  NAMES.  223 

sumption  of  the  democratic  character  of  anti-slavery  principles 
fascinated  even  the  ex-Liberty  men  into  believing  themselves 
Democrats;  and  hence  such  men  as  Chase  were  inclined  to 
expect  the  reformation  of  the  pro-slavery,  annexation,  filibus- 
tering, secession-threatening  party  of  1845-50,  simply  because  it 
called  itself  "Democratic."  So  effective  did  this  fallacy  prove 
that,  astonishing  as  it  seems  at  the  present  day,  the  anti-slavery 
men  of  1849  almost  uniformly  looked  for  allies  to  the  Demo- 
cratic party  rather  than  to  the  Whig,  even  in  places  where, 
before  1848,  such  action  was  unthinkable.  In  Ohio,  where, 
outside  of  the  Liberty  party,  nine-tenths  of  the  Free  Soil  voters 
of  1848  were  Whigs,  Democratic  coalition  swept  everything; 
also  in  Illinois,  where  one-third  of  the  party  were  Liberty  men ; 
in  Indiana,  where  numbers  of  them  were  Whigs,  and  throughout 
Wisconsin. 

Whig  coalition  took  place  in  those  regions  only  where  Whig 
principles  were  most  widely  spread,  or  where  the  nature  of 
the  local  Democratic  party  forbade  Free  Soil  and  Loco-foco 
union.  In  Ohio,  in  1849,  the  coalition  of  Whigs  and  Free 
Soilers  in  the  legislature,  and  in  1850  the  union  in  the  Twenty- 
first  Congressional  District,  were  due  to  the  fact  that  on  the 
Reserve  the  Free  Soilers  were  largely  ex-Whigs ;  but  it  is  note- 
worthy that  even  here  in  1849  coalition  was  chiefly  with  the 
Democrats.  In  Wisconsin  in  1850,  in  Iowa  in  1849,  and  in 
Michigan  in  1849,  Whig  coalition  did  not  take  place  until  Dem- 
ocratic fusion  had  become  clearly  out  of  the  question.  In  these 
States  the  Free  Soil  leaders  themselves,  though  desirous  of  Dem- 
ocratic union,  were  usually  passive  when  Whig  aid  was  proffered. 
Had  it  not  been  for  Cass's  personal  influence  in  Michigan  in 
1848-49,  it  seems  possible  that  Democratic  rather  than  Whig 
fusion  would  have  occurred  ;  but  when  once  the  tide  had  turned 
in  the  latter  direction,  the  Free  Soilers  without  hesitation  con- 
tinued to  coalesce  with  Whigs  in  local  and  Congressional  mat- 
ters, until  nothing  was  left  of  their  old  separate  party. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the   Compromise  of   1850  killed    j 
the  Free  Soil  party.     In  the  Northwest  this  was  certainly  not  I  ^ 
the  case  ;  for  although,  when  it  did  come,  it  put  an  end  to  the  J 
widespread  Wilmot  Proviso  feeling,  the  Compromise  was  not 


M 


224 


CAUSES  OF  THE   COLLAPSE. 


completed  until  after  coalition  had  run  its  course  and  the 
Free  Soil  party  was  already  reduced  to  its  lowest  point.  In 
the  only  elections  that  occurred  after  its  passage — those  in 
Michigan  and  Wisconsin  —  the  Compromise  seems  to  have  had 
little  effect,  for  in  these  States  the  Whig  party  continued  anti- 
slavery  up  to  the  time  of  the  election. 

Nevertheless,  the  fact  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  year  1850  tended  powerfully  to  obliterate 
party  lines,  and  thereby  to  render  exit  from  the  Free  Soil  ranks 
easy.  In  every  Northwestern  State  the  threatening  attitude  of 
the  Southern  Democrats,  coupled  with  the  position  taken  by 
Cass  and  Douglas,  brought  about  a  reaction  against  the  Demo- 
crats, which  led  many  Free  Soil  men,  especially  in  Michigan, 
Wisconsin,  and  Illinois,  to  join  the  Whigs,  not  merely  coalesc- 
ing, but  entirely  abandoning  all  third-party  action.  In  1850, 
then,  the  Free  Soil  party  was  hardly  distinguishable  as  a  sepa- 
rate organization  in  the  Northwest ;  in  only  three  of  the  States 
did  it  run  third  tickets,  and  in  those  it  polled  only  a  small  frac- 
tion of  its  former  strength.  Most  of  those  who,  in  1848,  had 
been  the  loudest  in  their  devotion  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  had 
gone  back  either  to  the  Democratic  or  to  the  Whig  party,  their 
return  in  every  case  being  made  easy  by  the  strong  anti-slavery 
platforms  of  the  old  organizations. 

Coalition  for  immediate  results  had  played  its  part,  and  in  the 
various  States  had  achieved  some  success.  Ohio  had  a  Free 
Soil  Senator,  three  Free  Soil  Congressmen,  and  several  Free  Soil 
members  of  the  legislature ;  through  their  balance  of  power  in 
the  legislature,  the  Free  Soilers  twice  secured  Wilmot  Proviso 
resolutions  and  the  repeal  of  the  Black  Laws.  Indiana  had  one 
Free  Soil  Representative,  and  a  Senator,  and  several  Congress- 
men who  avowed  Free  Soil  doctrines.  Michigan  had  several 
Free  Soil  members  of  the  legislature  and  two  Congressmen. 
Illinois  had  one  Democratic  Congressman,  who,  to  secure  his 
election,  had  been  obliged  to  advocate  Free  Soil  views.  Wis- 
consin had  one  Free  Soil  Congressman,  and  two  Senators  who 
asserted  Free  Soil  doctrine ;  and  it  also  had  several  third-party 
Representatives  in  the  legislature.  Iowa  alone  had  nothing 
to  show.  For  a  party  polling  in  the  six  Northwestern  States 


RESULTS  OF  COALITION.  22$ 

only  eleven  per  cent,  of  the  total  vote,  this  record  was  cred- 
itable. As  compared  with  that  of  the  Liberty  party,  it  showed 
a  vast  difference  in  results ;  but  also  another  difference :  in 
1841  the  Liberty  men  made  a  better  showing  for  a  separate 
party  than  did  the  Free  Soilers  in  1850.  Coalition  was  a 
two-edged  tool,  every  time  it  was  used  it  hurt  the  user  almost 
as  much  as  the  object  attacked.  So  effective  in  both  respects 
had  it  proved  to  the  Free  Soilers  that,  by  1850,  when  it  practi- 
cally ceased  for  a  time,  it  ceased  because  the  Free  Soil  party 
was  virtually  dead,  and  its  former  members  had  thus  lost  the 
power  of  compelling  concessions. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

THE    FREE   DEMOCRACY   STANDS   AGAINST   FINALITY. 

1850-1851. 

IN  the  opening  months  of  1851  it  seemed  as  if  the  last 
remnants  of  the  Free  Soil  party  might  as  well  disband.  A 
course  of  almost  uninterrupted  coalition  had  well-nigh  destroyed 
among  them  both  the  wish  and  the  power  for  independent 
action,  had  deprived  them  of  faith  in  their  own  resources  and 
in  each  other,  and  had  reduced  their  State  and  local  organiza- 
tions to  impotence. 

To  this  disintegration  the  Compromise  of  1850  —  passed  in 
September,  1850  —  came  as  the  finishing  blow.  People  were 
tired,  thoroughly  tired,  of  the  slavery  struggle;  they  desired 
never  to  hear  the  words  "Free  Soil"  or  "Wilmot  Proviso" 
again;  all  they  wanted  was  peace,  and  this  the  Compromise 
offered. 

In  reality,  the  Compromise  settled  nothing;  it  left  the  terri- 
torial question  much  as  it  had  been  before ;  but  this  fact  people 
agreed  to  ignore,  and  with  one  accord  statesmen,  politicians, 
and  newspapers,  hitherto  strong  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  joined 
in  the  cry  that  slavery  agitation  must  now  cease,  that  a  settle- 
ment which  was  a  "finality"  had  been  reached.  In  the  face 
of  this  clamor  the  Free  Democratic  party  for  the  time  being 
vanished  from  sight:  its  principles,  just  claimed  by  both 
parties,  were  now  repudiated  with  the  oft-repeated  assertion 
that,  since  the  question  of  slavery  was  settled,  no  one  but  a 
rank  disunion  abolitionist  would  still  maintain  them.  The 
Barnburners  in  particular,  who  had  already  rejoined  their  old 
associates,  now  reviled  their  temporary  allies  of  1848  as  con- 


OBJECTIONS  TO  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW.  22/ 

stitution-breakers,  fanatics,  and  fools,  because  they  too  did  not 
cease  struggling. 

Nevertheless,  this  year,  when  things  were  at  their  lowest  ebb, 
really  marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  phase  in  the  anti-slavery 
history  of  the  Northwest.  There  was  a  feeling  that  in  the 
hurly-burly  of  the  last  two  years  anti-slavery  sentiment  had  be-^ 
come  perverted,  that  a  return  to  first  principles  was  demanded ; 
and  consequently  there  was  a  reappearance  of  religious,  moral, 
and  non-partisan  anti-slavery  agitation,  reminding  one  of  the 
days  previous  to  1840.  The  Compromise  measures  included  a 
statute  against  which  anti-slavery  people  the  country  over  could 
band  themselves;  it  was  the  new  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  which 
indeed,  upon  its  passage,  had  proch*G€4i~a-serr"tyr"explosion  in  I ' 
the  Northwest.  In  Ohio,  the  Western  Reserve  rose  as  one  man 
to  condemn  the  obnoxious  bill.  Free  Soil,  Whig,  and  Demo-v-vl  ^^J 
cratic  papers  lamented  its  passage,  and  public  meetings  with- 
out respect  to  party  uttered  fiery  denunciations  coupled  with 
threats  of  disobedience.  Clergymen  took  an  active  part,  and 
anti-slavery  men  who  had  hardly  met  since  the  days  of  1838 
found  themselves  for  the  moment  side  by  side. 

A  few  examples  will  illustrate  the  uproar.  "We  deem  it 
the  duty  of  every  good  citizen,"  said  a  meeting  in  Cleveland, 
"to  oppose  and  resist  by  all  proper  means  the  execution  of 
said  law."1  In  Highland  County  a  meeting,  managed  by  Mr. 
Chase  and  the  old  time  abolitionists,  John  Rankin  and  Samuel 
Crothers,  resolved  that  "Disobedience  to  the  enactment  is 
obedience  to  God."2  Said  Belmont  County:  "If  the  Federal 
Government  has  any  slaves  to  catch  it  may  catch  them,  —  we 
will  not  aid  or  assist,  nor  do  we  believe  any  respectable  or 
high-minded  citizen  of  the  Union  will."3  Washington  County 
resolved  "  That  any  man  who  in  any  way  aids  in  the  execution 
of  this  law  should  be  regarded  as  false  to  God  and  totally  un- 
fit for  civilized  society."4  Similar  sentiments  were  expressed 
in  Indiana,  where  one  of  the  meetings,  rising  on  the  wings  of 
eloquence,  resolved  "That  we  will  not  assist,  if  called  upon, 

1  True  Democrat,  Oct.  14,  1850. 

2  National  Era,  Dec.  5,  1850. 

8  Ibid.,  Nov.  14,  1850.        4  Ibid.,  Dec.  5,  1850. 


228  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

in  capturing  or  securing  a  fugitive  slave  under  this  act,  although 
the  penalty  for  refusing  should  deprive  us  of  all  our  posses- 
sions and  incarcerate  us  between  dungeon  walls."1  A  Michigan 
meeting  resolved  that  "Any  commissioner  or  marshal  who 
will  not  rather  resign  his  office  than  consent  to  aid  in  carry- 
ing this  law  into  effect,  has  too  little  soul  to  appreciate  the 
blessings  of  freedom,  and  is  unworthy  of  our  confidence  or 
respect."2  The  northern  counties  of  Illinois  echoed  these 
protests.  The  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  Wisconsin  revolted 
at  the  new  law,  expressing  itself  in  dozens  of  protests;  and 
Iowa  felt  a  ripple  of  the  excitement  and  held  indignation 
meetings.3 

Even  legislative  bodies  felt  the  heat  of  this  fierce  indignation. 
The  Chicago  Common  Council  passed  a  resolution  that  the 
city  police  should  not  be  required  to  aid  in  the  recovery  of 
slaves.4  While  the  feeling  was  at  its  height,  an  effort  was  made 
in  the  Ohio  legislature  to  pass  resolutions  instructing  Senators 
and  Representatives  to  vote  for  the  repeal  of  the  law;  but  it 
was  defeated  in  the  House,  38  to  33.  Toward  the  end  of  the 
session,  in  March,  some  milder  resolutions  were  passed,  asking 
merely  for  an  amendment  of  the  law  so  as  to  secure  jury  trial; 
and,  in  default  of  that,  for  its  repeal.  This  request  was  so 
unsatisfactory  to  the  Free  Soil  members  that  some  of  them  on 
the  final  passage  voted  against  it.5  In  Wisconsin  similar  reso- 
lutions passed  the  Senate  by  a  close  vote,  but  were  tabled  in 
the  House.6  By  the  spring  of  1851  the  excitement  among 
those  who  were  not  abolitionists  had  burnt  itself  out,  and 
people  were  beginning  to  accept  the  law  as  a  disagreeable  but 
necessary  part  of  the  Compromise. 

To  all  thorough-going  anti-slavery  men,  however,  the  Fugi- 

•  tive  Slave  Law  remained  an  object  of  execration ;    and  its  re- 

/   1  peal  formed   the  immediate  aim  of  their  agitation,  now  that 

1  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Nov.  15,  1850. 

2  National  Era,  Nov.  14,  1850. 

8  Iowa  True  Democrat,  Feb.  5,  1851. 

4  A.  T.  Andreas,  History  of  Chicago,  I.,  608. 

5  National  Era,  April  3,  1851. 

6  Kenosha  Telegraph,  Feb.  14,  1851. 


ANTI-SLA  VER  Y  REORGANIZA  TION.  22Q 

the  Wilmot  Proviso  had  been  compromised  away.1  Anti- 
slavery  organization  began  once  more  at  first  principles,  —  on 
the  ground  that  slavery  was  unrighteous.  In  April,  1850, 
during  the  Compromise  debate,  a  Christian  Anti-Slavery  Con- 
vention, in  which  veteran  abolitionists  of  1838  took  part,  had 
been  held  at  Cincinnati  with  great  success  ;  2  following  this 
model  a  Northwestern  Christian  Convention  was  held  at  Chicago, 
in  July,  1851,  at  which  eleven  States  were  represented  by  clergy- 
men and  laymen,  including  many  of  the  stamp  of  Samuel  Lewis 
and  Owen  Lovejoy.  Both  of  these  conventions  revived  the  half- 
forgotten  language  of  1836,  insisting  on  the  pre-eminently  relig- 
ious character  of  anti-slavery  action.3  In  the  following  years 
local  Christian  conventions,  held  in  all  of  the  Northwestern  States, 
revived  the  old  agitation ;  and,  little  by  little,  movements  began 
toward  resuming  anti-slavery  political  action.  Ohio  and  Wis- 
consin, it  is  true,  did  not  feel  this  impulse  so  much  as  did  the 
other  communities ;  for  in  these  two  States  the  Free  Soil  party 
still  lived  on.  Michigan  anti-slavery  sentiment  still  remained 
prostrate,  giving  little  or  no  sign  of  life. 

In  the  rest  of  the  Northwest  the  work  of  1841  began  anew. 
In  Indiana  the  old  Quaker  leaven  began  to  work  again,  and  a 
call  appeared  in  Wayne  County,  saying:  "  Years  have  elapsed 
since  we  have  had  an  anti-slavery  meeting  in  the  county  and 
all  this  time  the  foes  of  freedom  have  been  triumphing.  We 
have  surely  lost  strength  by  inaction.  Come,  let  us  have  a 
genuine,  good,  old-fashioned  anti-slavery  convention."4  Then 
came  a  Christian  Anti-Slavery  Convention  at  Indianapolis,  on 
May  28,  1851,  followed  by  a  "Political  Anti-Slavery  Conven- 
tion," in  which,  under  the  presidency  of  Judge  Stevens,  some  old- 
time  Liberty  men,  with  a  few  Free  Soilers,  adopted  a  long  series 
of  resolutions  of  the  old  stamp,  besides  denouncing  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  Law,  advocating  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic,  on 
the  principle  of  the  "  Maine  Law,"  and  calling  for  a  National 

1  A  meeting  to  organize  a  party  against  the  law  was  held  in  Randolph 
County,  Indiana,  Jan.  i,  1851  :  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Feb.  27,  1851. 

2  Report  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society,  1850. 
8  National  Era,  July  10,  31,  1851. 

4  Indiana  True  Democrat,  April  10,  1851. 


230  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

Political  Anti-Slavery  Convention  at  Cleveland.  A  State  Cen- 
tral Committee  was  appointed,  and  measures  were  taken  to 
sustain  the  True  Democrat! 

Illinois  followed  the  example  of  Indiana  by  holding,  on  Jan- 
uary 9,  a  State  Anti-Slavery  Convention  at  Granville.  A  new 
State  Anti-Slavery  Society  was  formed  on  "religious,  moral, 
and  political  grounds,"  with  J.  H.  Collins  as  president,  Z. 
Eastman  as  secretary,  and  with  a  full  list  of  officers,  nearly 
all  of  whom  were  old  Liberty  men.  A  set  of  resolutions  was 
adopted,  which,  like  those  of  Indiana,  rang  with  radicalism; 
so  that  even  the  National  Era  felt  called  upon  to  condemn 
their  tenor  as  "  illegal  and  prescriptive."  "Our  efforts,"  it  said, 
"  are  not  limited  to  the  restriction  of  slavery,  but  we  labor  for 
its  abolition.  An  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  never  implies 
an  obligation  to  support  any  immorality  it  may  contain.  .  .  . 
Slavery  like  piracy  has  no  legal  existence  in  the  United  States," 
and,  in  the  language  of  the  Liberty  League,  "it  is  unconstitu- 
tional."2 There  was  also  a  convention  for  southern  Illinois  in 
Randolph  County,  which  paid  its  respects  to  the  "  Union-saving" 
cry  of  the  Compromisers  in  the  following  prophetic  language: 
"  We  do  not  believe  the  union  of  these  States  is  in  the  slightest 
manner  endangered  by  the  agitation  of  this  question.  The 
sagacious  statesmen  of  the  slave  states  know  that  a  majority 
of  their  citizens  are  in  favor  of  the  Union.  A  war  destructive 
of  slavery,  perhaps  of  the  slaveholders,  must  be  the  results  of 
secession."3 

/J    Such  language  fell  unheeded  by  the  leaders  of  the  old  parties. 

/To  them  the  non-extension  of  slavery  was  a  dead  issue ;  and, 
therefore,  in  most  of  the  Northwestern  States  they  proceeded 
to  rid  themselves  in  all  haste  of  the  Free  Soil  doctrines  which 
they  had  been  upholding  so  vigorously,  and  to  plant  themselves 
squarely  on  the  Compromise.  In  Indiana  the  legislature  opened 
the  year  by  choosing,  for  Senator,  J.  D.  Bright,  who,  in  con- 
trast to  Whitcomb,  elected  in  1849,  was  "avowedly  the  friend 
and  ally  of  the  South."  The  Indianapolis  Sentinel,  which  in 
1849  had  claimed  that  the  Democratic  party  in  its  opposition  to 

1  National  Era,  June  26,  1851 ;  Indiana  True  Democrat,  June  12,  1851. 

2  Ibid.,  Feb.  6,  1851,  March  20,  1851.  8  Ibid.,  July  3,  1851. 


OLD  PARTIES  ADOPT  COMPROMISE.  231 

slavery  "occupied  a  position  of  moral  strength  otherwise  un- 
rivalled,"1 now  came  under  the  control  of  W.  J.  Brown,  who, 
though  a  Free  Soil  Democrat  in  1848,  now  placed  his  paper 
among  the  unswerving  advocates  of  the  "finality  "  of  the  Com- 
promise. Among  the  requisites  for  Democracy  he  placed  "  ad- 
herence to  the  recent  Compromise  measures  of  Congress  on 
the  subject  of  domestic  slavery,  and  opposition  to  the  repeal  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  further  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question.  We  are  for  the  Compromise  as  a  whole.  On  this 
rock  we  have  taken  our  stand.  It  is  the  rock  of  safety  to  the 
Democratic  party,  and  the  rock  of  safety  to  the  Union."2  In 
Illinois  the  Democratic  party  in  the  legislature,  through  the 
influence  of  Douglas,  passed  resolutions  indorsing  the  Com- 
promise measures  and  rescinding  the  Wilmot  Proviso  instruc- 
tions of  two  years  before. 

In  Michigan  the  Democratic  party,  which  already,  under 
Cass's  dictation,  had  abandoned  Free  Soil  ground,  now  signal- 
ized the  disappearance  of  old  feuds  by  unanimously  renominat- 
ing  Cass  to  the  Senate,  and  later  by  nominating  for  governor  R. 
McClelland,  a  former  Wilmot  Proviso  man,  whose  nomination 
in  1849  had  been  prevented  by  Cass's  personal  effort.  McClel- 
land had  been  so  consistently  anti-slavery  that  the  leaders  of 
the  defunct  Free  Soil  party,  after  consultation,  expressly  de- 
clined to  put  a  candidate  in  the  field  against  him.3 

The  Democratic  majority  in  the  Wisconsin  legislature  passed 
resolutions  rescinding  the  censure  of  Senator  Walker  in  1849; 
and  the  State  Convention,  in  spite  of  opposition  from  some 
returned  Barnburners,  resolved  "That  the  Democracy  of  Wis- 
consin now  stand,  where  all  true  Democrats  have  stood  since 
1836,  on  the  platform  of  principles  drawn  by  that  pure  and 
lamented  statesmen,  Silas  Wright;  and  we  would  in  their  name 
repudiate  all  extraneous  issues  and  sectional  tests  of  party  faith 
as  disorganizing  in  their  tendency."4 

The  Iowa  Democracy  had  been  throughout  so   pro-slavery 

1  National  Era,  July  12,  1849. 

2  Indiana  True  Democrat,  March  20,  April  3,  1851. 

8  H.  K.  Clarke,  Detroit  Post  and  Tribune,  July  6,  1879. 

4  National  Era,  Oct.  2,  1851;  Racine  Advocate,  Sept.  17,  1851. 


232  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

that  no  recantation  was  necessary  to  bring  it  into  line  with  the 
national  party.  In  1849,  its  majority  in  the  legislature  had 
flouted  and  shelved  some  Wilmot  Proviso  resolutions,  after 
having  made  sport  of  them  by  proposing  ludicrous  and  inde- 
cent amendments.  Now  in  1851  the  Iowa  legislature  proceeded 
to  pass  joint  resolutions  favoring  the  Compromise ;  and  enacted 
a  law  forbidding  free  negroes  or  mulattoes  to  settle  in  the  State 
on  penalty  of  fine  and  imprisonment,  adding  with  cutting  irony: 
"This  act  is  to  take  effect  and  be  in  force  by  publication  in 
the  Iowa  True  Democrat,  a  weekly  newspaper  published  in  Mt. 
Pleasant."1  The  True  Democrat  naturally  refused  to  publish 
the  law,  saying  in  its  disgust :  "  When  we  take  into  considera- 
tion this  new  law,  making  Iowa  a  slaveholding  state  for  slave- 
holding  monopolists,  we  think  our  legislature  serves  the  Devil 
with  more  alacrity  than  even  their  slave-holding  lords  could 
desire."2 

With  the  Whigs  matters  were  somewhat  different.  To  be 
sure  party  organs  directly  accessible  to  "  influence "  from 
Washington  said,  in  the  language  of  the  Detroit  Advertiser: 
"  No  threats  of  disunion  will  ever  serve  to  drive  a  single  true- 
hearted  Whig  from  the  support  of  an  administration  which  he 
knows  to  be  pure  and  true'' 3  Yet  the  party  conventions  were 
less  eager  than  were  their  Democratic  opponents  to  ratify  the 
Compromise.  The  Ohio  State  Convention  resolved  that,  as 
the  Compromise  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  were  not  adminis- 
tration measures,  every  Whig  was  at  liberty  to  hold  his  own 
opinion  concerning  them ;  and  many  local  conventions  passed 
anti-slavery  resolutions.  In  Indiana,  although  the  leading  Whig 
newspapers  assumed  a  non-committal  attitude,  party  conven- 
tions in  two  districts  condemned  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  as 
"  impolitic,  unjust,  abhorrent  to  our  feelings  and  repugnant  to 
our  habits."  4  The  Michigan  Whig  State  Convention,  "  while 
holding  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  abide  by  and  sup- 
port all  laws  constitutionally  passed  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 

1  Laws  of  Iowa  (1850-51),  172-73. 

2  Quoted  in  Indiana  True  Democrat,  March  27,  1851. 
8  Detroit  Advertiser,  Feb.  3,  1851. 

4  National  Era,  Aug.  7,  1851. 


INDIANA   DEMOCRATS  DESERT  JULIAN.  233 

nevertheless  was  now  as  always  opposed  to  the  extension  of 
slavery  over  territory  now  free." 1  In  Wisconsin  the  Whigs, 
still  bolder,  declared  themselves  opposed  to  the  extension  of 
slavery,  and  defied  the  "  finality"  cry  by  saying:  "We  deem 
it  the  unquestionable  right  of  every  citizen  to  canvass  the  merits 
of  every  enactment,  and  if  found  to  be  unjust,  oppressive, 
or  of  doubtful  expediency,  to  advocate  their  modification  or 
repeal."2 

In  1851  the  only  elections  in  which  organized  anti-slavery 
action  was  involved  were  in  Indiana,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  and  in 
Iowa,  where,  although  the  third-party  men  took  no  State  action, 
enough  vigor  remained  to  run  Free  Democratic  tickets  in 
several  counties.3  /<In  the  Fourth  Congressional  District  of 
Indiana,  G.  W.  Julian,  who  had  been  elected  in  1849  by  Free 
Soil  and  Democratic  coalition,  was  now,  under  very  discourag- 
ing auspices,  nominated  for  re-election.  The  only  supporters 
upon  whom  he  could  certainly  count  were  the  Free  Democrats 
and  Liberty  men,  for  the  Whigs  of  the  district  stood  on  the 
Compromise,  and  the  Democrats  were  wavering.  In  spite  of  the 
efforts  of  W.  J.  Brown,  of  the  Indianapolis  Sentinel,  seconded  by 
those  of  Oliver  P.  Morton,  the  Democratic  district  convention 
stood  by  him,  since  it  knew  that  it  had  no  chance  of  success 
without  Free  Soil  help ;  it  therefore  passed  some  resolutions  in 
favor  of  the  Compromise,  and  adjourned  without  nominating 
anybody.4  Julian  was  thus  left  the  only  opponent  of  the  Whig 
candidate,  and  he  made  a  gallant  fight.  He  took  the  stump 
and  traversed  the  whole  district  thoroughly,  combating  the  viru- 
lent opposition  of  the  Whigs  and  the  underhand  disaffection  of 
the  Democrats.  Some  negotiations  were  opened  for  a  joint 
canvass  ;  but  the  scheme  fell  to  the  ground,  and  the  air  was 
filled  with  charges  and  counter-charges  of  cowardice.  When  on 
several  occasions  the  two  candidates  did  encounter  each  other, 
their  speeches  were  envenomed  with  personalities,  Parker  losing 
his  temper  and  Julian  giving  back  with  interest  all  that  he 

1  Detroit  Advertiser,  Sept.  12,  1851. 

2  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Sept.  25,  1851. 
8  Iowa  True  Democrat,  July  23,  1851. 
4  National  Era,  July  17,  1851. 


234  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

received.  By  his  personal  popularity  and  by  his  aggressive 
bearing  in  the  fight,  Julian  succeeded  in  holding  the  greater 
part  of  the  Democrats  who  had  supported  him  two  years  before, 
as  well  as  a  few  Whigs ;  but  the  efforts  of  the  Sentinel  cut  away 
the  ground  from  under  him,  and  Parker  was  elected  through 
.  Democratic  votes.1  The  result  of  this  contest  was  the  end  of 
coalition  between  the  anti-slavery  and  Democratic  organizations 
in  Indiana./ 

In  Wisconsin  the  third  party  raised  its  head  in  1851  for  the 
first  time  since  October,  1849,  and  issued  a  call  for  a  State 
Mass  Convention  of  all  opposed  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  to 
be  held  September  9.  The  convention  thus  called,  evidently 
remembered  Durkee's  success  through  Whig  votes  in  1850;  for 
it  took  an  unusual  step  in  nominating  for  Governor  L.  J.  Farwell, 
an  anti-slavery  Whig,  expecting  that  the  Whigs  would  unite  on 
him.  The  proceedings  were  almost  entirely  in  the  hands  of  old 
Liberty  men,  Durkee,  Holton,  Booth,  Ray,  and  J.  H.  Paine 
formerly  of  Ohio;  but  the  ticket  nominated  had,  as  usual,  a 
large  admixture  of  Barnburners.  Though  the  platform  had  the 
ordinary  Free  Soil  flavor,  the  name  "  Free  Democrat "  was 
avoided  by  this  State  Convention ; 2  but  the  affiliated  local 
organizations  continued  under  their  old  names  during  the 
campaign  without  any  such  qualms. 

This  nomination  proved  fortunate;  for  the  Whigs,  on  their 
side,  ascertained  that  Farwell,  in  spite  of  his  choice  by  the 
"Mass  Convention,"  was  no  Free  Soiler,  but  a  true  Whig; 
at  their  State  Convention  he  was  nominated  on  a  strong  anti- 
slavery  platform,  largely  through  the  personal  efforts  of  S.  M. 
Booth,  of  the  Milwaukee  Free  Democrat,  who  had  gained 
Farwell's  assent  to  the  plan  and  had  managed  the  Free  Soil 

1  The  comparison  between  the  votes  of  the  two  years   is  shown  as 
follows :  — 

Whig.  Coalition. 

1849  4,583  4,737 

1851  5,102  4,540 

For  the  details  of  this  campaign,  see  G.  W.  Julian,  Political  Recollections, 
1 1 6-1 8,  and  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Mar.  i3~Aug.  7,  1851,  and  especially 
Aug.  28. 

2  Kenosha  Telegraph,  Sept.  26,  1851. 


FREE  DEMOCRATS  AID    WISCONSIN  WHIGS.        235 

convention.1  The  Free  Soilers  at  first  did  not  think  it  prudent 
to  notify  Farwell  of  their  nomination,  lest  he  should  decline  it. 
Such  fears  were  unnecessary ;  the  Whigs  were  too  much  in  need 
of  Free  Soil  votes  to  reject  their  unaccustomed  allies ;  they  did 
not  revolt  even  when  Durkee,  to  quiet  the  uneasy  consciences  of 
the  more  radical  anti-slavery  men,  wrote  to  Farwell  asking  him 
his  views.  The  reply  was  so  thoroughly  anti-slavery  that  the 
Free  Soilers  rallied  to  Farwell's  support,  and  secured  his  election. 
The  Whigs  thus  got  not  only  a  Governor,  but  —  for  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  State  —  a  plurality  over  the  Democrats  in 
the  lower  branch  of  the  legislature.  Although  Farwell  could 
not  have  been  elected  without  the  Free  Soil  vote,  the  Whigs 
considered  their  victory  was  due  to  advocacy  of  State  banks ;  a 
policy  which,  the  Democrats  said  :  "  the  enemies  of  the  Democ- 
racy stalked  forth  as  a  kind  of  war-horse  to  operate  on  the 
nerves  of  voters."2  In  the  vote  for  Lieutenant-Governor  may 
be  seen  the  usual  damaging  effect  of  partial  coalition.  The 
Free  Democratic  vote  had  fallen  now  to  even  less  than  in  1849, 
and,  outside  a  few  counties,  comprised  few  except  old-time 
Liberty  men.3 

In  Ohio  in  1851  several  incidents  occurred  which,  like  the 
revival  of  anti-slavery  agitation  in  Indiana  and  Illinois  and  the 
renewal  of  party  action  in  Wisconsin,  marked  the  beginning  of 
a  new  growth.  The  first  problem  to  confront  the  diminished 
number  of  Free  Soilers  in  the  legislature  of  1850-51  was  the 
question  of  the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator.  For  a 
time  it  seemed  as  if  the  days  of  1849  had  come  again;  for  the 
third  party  still  held  the  balance  of  power  in  each  House,  and  a 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  "  deal "  arranged  the  organization  of  the 
Senate ;  while  Morse,  as  though  bound  to  repeat  his  achieve- 
ments of  two  years  previous,  was  chosen  Speaker  of  the  House 
by  Democratic  agreement.  When  the  time  came  for  the  sena- 

1  Author's  correspondence  with  S.  M.  Booth,  July,  1896. 

2  Letter  in  Racine  Advocate,  Jan.  14,  1892. 
8  The  vote  was  as  follows  :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Free  Soil. 

Governor  Upham  21,812       Farwell  22,319 

Lieut. -Governor     Burrs  24,519         Hughes  16,721       Spaulding  2,904 


236  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

torial  election,  however,  no  coalition  of  any  sort  had  been 
engineered :  the  Free  Soilers  held  together  in  most  exemplary 
fashion  in  support  of  Giddings ;  the  Whigs  voted  steadily  for 
Griswold ;  and  the  Democrats,  relinquishing  all  hope  of  Free 
Soil  aid,  stood  grimly  by  H.  B.  Payne.  This  condition  of 
things  was  very  exasperating  to  Chase.  "  Of  course  I  want  a 
man  of  decided  Democratic  sympathies  and  affinities,"  he  wrote 
to  his  agent,  E.  S.  Hamlin ;  and  he  suggested  that  "  it  would  not 
be  amiss  for  the  Free  Democrats  to  elect  some  Democrat  of  the 
Old  Line  in  sympathy  with  them  —  say  Spaulding."  1 

After  thirteen  fruitless  ballots,  it  became  evident  that  a  hard 
struggle  was  inevitable;  therefore  the  senatorial  election  was 
postponed  until  the  end  of  the  session.  Balloting  was  then  re- 
sumed, with  the  same  candidates  as  before;  until  on  March  13 
the  Free  Soilers  suddenly  abandoned  Giddings  for  Vaughn, 
gaining  by  this  manoeuvre  a  few  Whig  votes.  By  this  time  it 
was  common  rumor  that  coalition,  if  any  there  were,  must  be 
between  Whigs  and  Free  Democrats,  a  state  of  things  which 
caused  Chase  the  utmost  alarm.  "  Any  arrangement  with  the 
Whigs,"  he  wrote,  "would  put  a  club  in  the  hands  of  the 
enemies  of  our  cause  with  which  they  would  infallibly  break 
our  heads.  If  there  is  no  hope  for  the  triumph  of  our  cause 
through  the  progress  and  co-operation  of  the  Democrats,  there 
is  no  hope  for  it,  I  see."  Then,  thinking  of  his  own  election,  he 
remarked :  "  Thank  God  I  have  never  compromised  principle 
for  political  place  and,  with  his  blessing,  I  never  will."  2  In 
spite  of  Chase's  warnings,  a  series  of  rapid  changes  now  took 
place  on  the  part  of  Whigs  and  Free  Soilers,  each  party  testing 
the  other  by  some  new  candidate.  The  Free  Soilers  put  for- 
ward Giddings,  Vaughn,  Sutliff,  and  Hildreth ;  the  Whigs  tried 
Corwin,  B.  F.  Wade,  Lane,  Williamson,  and  finally  Wade  again, 
who  on  the  twenty-ninth  ballot,  on  March  17,  received  all  the 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  votes  and  was  elected.3  This  victory, 
almost  the  last  Whig  success  of  any  moment  in  Ohio,  caused 
great  Whig  rejoicing;  for  Wade,  though  a  stalwart  anti-slavery 

1  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  Dec.  9,  1850,  and  Jan.  15,  1851  :  Chase  MSS. 

'2  Ibid.,  Jan.  17,  1851. 

8  Trite  Democrat,  Jan.  3-March  17, 1851 ;  National  Era,  March  27,  1851. 


WHIGS  AND  FREE  DEMOCRATS  ELECT  WADE.      237 

man  since  1838,  had  not  flinched  from  his  party  in  1844,  or  even 
in  1848.  All  Free  Soilers,  also,  except  Chase  and  his  followers, 
were  well  satisfied ;  for  in  the  previous  autumn  Wade  had  made 
a  fiery  speech  denouncing  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  they 
felt  sure  that  he  would  be  no  compromiser.  "  He  is  a  true 
Northern  man,"  said  the  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  "  one  who 
will  not  yield  the  hundredth  part  of  an  inch  where  freedom 
is  at  stake." 1  Giddings,  however,  though  recognizing  Wade's 
anti-slavery  position,  could  not  forget  that  he  had  always 
followed  his  party,  and  wrote  to  Sumner  in  words  that  sound 
oddly  in  view  of  later  events :  "  I  have  no  distrust  of  his  pres- 
ent feelings.  My  objection  to  him  is  solely  on  account  of  his 
want  of  straightforward  determination  of  purpose.  That  leads 
me  to  fear  he  may  leave  us  at  some  future  day."  2 

In  the  State  election  of  1851  it  became  apparent  that  anti- 
slavery  principles  were  still  a  power  in  the  land ;  for  while 
Democratic  and  Whig  parties  in  other  States  were  hastening  to 
abandon  Free  Soil  ground,  those  in  Ohio  stood  unmoved  where 
they  had  been  since  1848.  The  Whigs,  meeting  on  June  3,  re- 
solved that,  since  the  Compromise  and  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  were  not  party  measures,  every  Whig  was  at  liberty  to 
hold  his  own  opinions  concerning  them ;  but  this  refusal  to  in- 
dorse the  "  finality  "  was  weakened  by  the  nomination  for  Gov- 
ernor of  G.  F.  Vinton,  who  while  in  Congress  had  changed 
front  on  the  slavery  question.3  The  Democrats  went  into  the 
campaign  with  high  spirits;  for  the  new  State  constitution, 
a  thoroughly  popular  instrument,  was  their  work,  a  fact  by 
which  they  were  sure  to  profit.  To  make  success  certain,  in 
their  State  Convention  they  reaffirmed  their  anti-slavery  plank 
of  1848,  omitted  to  notice  the  Compromise,  and  renominated 
Governor  Wood.  It  might  be  true,  that  the  delegates  greeted 
the  news  of  the  success  of  negro  exclusion  in  Indiana  with  yells 
of  applause ;  4  but  as  that  fact  did  not  appear  on  the  surface, 

1  March  18,  1851. 

2  March  17,  1851  :  Sumner  MSS.     See  also  G.  W.  Julian,  Life  of  J.  R. 
Giddings,  287. 

8  National  Era,  July  10-31,  1851. 

4  True  Democrat,  Aug.  8,  1851  ;  National  Era,  Aug.  14-21,  1851. 


238  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

the  Democrats  of  Ohio  went  into  the  State  election  of  1851  with 
a  platform  almost  as  anti-slavery  as  that  of  the  Free  Democrats 
themselves. 

The  Free  Soilers,  meanwhile,  plucked  up  courage,  asserted 
the  permanency  of  their  party,  and  called  for  a  State  Conven- 
tion. As  usual,  the  Western  Reserve  led  the  way;  and  on 
May  6  a  convention  at  Painesville  fired  a  signal  gun  by  passing 
a  set  of  courageous  resolutions  under  the  lead  of  Giddings, 
Vaughn,  Bissell,  Morse,  and  others,  recommending  a  Western 
Reserve  convention  on  June  25,  a  national  Convention  later, 
and  thorough  local  organization.  The  Western  Reserve  Conven- 
tion at  Ravenna,  on  June  25,  presided  over  by  J.  F.  Morse,  was 
an  able  body.  The  attendance  was  2,000 ;  Tilden,  Chase,  Lewis, 
and  Giddings  made  addresses ;  and  great  enthusiasm  showed 
that,  whatever  might  happen  elsewhere,  the  Western  Reserve 
was  still  true  to  independent  action.  The  resolutions  reiterated 
the  Buffalo  platform  ;  condemned  the  old  parties,  the  Compro- 
mise, and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law;  recommended  a  national 
Convention  at  Cleveland  to  organize  for  1852,  and  appointed  a 
committee  to  call  a  State  Convention.  On  August  21  the  State 
Convention  assembled,  and  for  the  first  time  since  1848  the  anti- 
slavery  forces  of  the  State  got  into  good  working  order.  All 
the  old  leaders  were  present;  Giddings  presided,  J.  Birney  was 
secretary,  Spaulding,  Vaughn,  Lewis,  Root,  and  Hamlin  spoke ; 
and  the  utmost  harmony  reigned,  except  for  a  slight  brush 
between  the  ex-Whigs  and  the  ex-Democrats  over  a  clause  in 
the  resolutions  favoring  a  low  tariff.  A  full  State  ticket  was 
nominated,  headed  by  the  name  of  the  candidate  for  Governor, 
Lewis.  When  the  chairman  of  the*  nominating  committee  read 
Lewis's  name,  the  veteran  came  forward  and  tried  to  withdraw ; 
but  suddenly  Root,  from  the  audience,  broke  in :  "  Hold,  hold, 
sir,  I  beseech  you  !  The  boys  who  listened  to  you  when  travel- 
ling over  the  State  and  speaking  in  behalf  of  education  are  men 
now,  and  they  want  a  chance  to  vote  for  you."  Everybody  rose 
and  cheered,  and  amid  the  thunders  of  applause,  Lewis,  much 
moved,  bowed  his  speechless  acquiescence.1  The  convention 
adjourned  with  high  hopes. 

1  True  Democrat,  Aug.  23-25,  1851 ;  National  Era,  Aug.  28,  1851. 


REVIVAL   OF  OHIO  FREE  DEMOCRACY.  239 

Before  the  campaign  had  fairly  opened,  the  party  received  a 
blow  between  the  eyes  that  fairly  dazed  it.  In  a  long  letter, 
dated  August  25,  1851,  S.  P.  Chase  avowed  his  intention  to  act 
with  the  Ohio  Democrats  in  this  election,  and  to  support  Judge 
Wood  against  Sam  Lewis.  To  prove  that  the  Ohio  Demo- 
crats were  an  anti-slavery  body,  Chase  adduced  a  long  list  of 
Free  Soil  opinions  and  resolutions  from  local  conventions  and 
papers  of  the  years  1849-50,  and  pointed  out,  as  finally  conclu- 
sive, the  action  of  the  recent  convention  in  not  approving  the 
Compromise  and  in  renominating  Wood.  "  I  regret,"  he  said  in 
conclusion,  "  that  I  cannot  expect  the  concurrence  of  all  the 
devoted  friends  of  freedom  and  progress,  with  whom  I  have 
been  accustomed  to  act.  ...  I  must  abide  also  the  Censures 
of  those  Free  Soilers  who  allow  themselves  to  see  in  Democracy 
only  a  malign  spirit  servile  to  all  wrongs  and  hostile  to  all  good, 
and  look  to  a  dissolved  and  reconstructed  Whig  party  for  the 
realization  of  their  ideas  of  reform.  Hereafter,  as  before,  I  shall 
be  faithful  to  my  cause."  l  Such  action  on  Chase's  part  was  the 
logical  outcome  of  his  state  of  mind  since  1845,  as  shown  in  his 
fondness  for  the  term"  Democracy;  "  in  his  refusal  to  recognize 
the  Western  Reserve  Whigs  as  true  Free  Soilers,  coupled  with 
his  unhesitating  acceptance  of  the  Barnburners  as  his  yoke- 
fellows; in  his  efforts  in  1849  to  bring  about  local  fusion;  and 
in  his  letter  in  1851  to  Donaldson,  of  the  Democratic  National 
Committee,  in  which  he  said  that  he  "  greatly  desired  the  union 
and  harmony  of  the  Democracy."  2  All  these  indications  pointed 
one  way;  but  he  had  never  during  the  years  1849-50  separated 
from  the  Free  Soil  organization ;  and  he  had  played  an  active 
part  in  organizing  and  attending  the  great  convention  on  the 
Western  Reserve  at  Ravenna.  Now,  in  1851,  when  the  Demo- 
cratic party  everywhere  except  in  Ohio  stood  on  the  Compro- 
mise, his  adherence  to  the  local  Free  Soil  body  seemed  a  matter 
of  necessity. 

Chase's  letter  was  therefore  an  entire  surprise  to  his  former 
Free  Soil  associates,  and  tried  to  the  uttermost  the  patience  of 
the  Western  Reserve,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Free  Soil  party  at 

1  National  Era,  Sept.  n,  1851. 

2  Aug.  2,  1851 :  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  334. 


240  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

large.  Lewis  wrote  in  disgust  to  Arthur  Tappan  :  "  Men  lose 
their  confidence  in  our  political  movement  because  so  many 
flaming  Liberty  men  and  Free  Soilers  are  worshipping  false 
gods  and  seeking  to  draw  us  away.  ...  I  am  a  Democrat,  but 
do  not  recognize  the  party  recognizing  Cass,  Dickinson,  and 
Douglas  as  democratic,  nor  can  I  knowingly  do  aught  that 
can  help  such  a  party  into  power."1 

At  first  the  True  Democrat,  struggling  hard  to  keep  its 
temper,  remarked  that  it  would  not  condemn  him :  "  Mr.  Chase 
has  bared  his  bosom  to  whoever  will  strike.  We  give  no 
blow  " ;  2  but  as  public  discussion  of  the  matter  increased,  and 
letters  came  from  old-time  Liberty  men  describing  their  "  inex- 
pressible surprise,"  it  became  more  and  more  open  in  its  con- 
demnation, as  did  the  Western  Reserve  Chronicle,  the  Ashtabula 
Sentinel,  the  Painesville  Telegraph,  and  in  fact  nearly  every 
Free  Democratic  paper,  except  the  Washington  National  Era. 
"  Mr.  Chase,"  said  the  True  Democrat,  "  is  now  opposing  in 
Ohio  Sam  Lewis  and  supporting  Reuben  Wood.  There  is  no 
logic  which  can  reconcile  in  our  minds  this  inconsistency  or  its 
moral  clash.  ...  It  is  all  ajar."3  It  spoke  of  him  as  the  "  late 
Mr.  Chase,  our  lamented  friend,"  and  finally  said :  "  We  believe 
it  would  have  been  incomparably  better  for  the  party,  if  it  had 
never  raised  a  finger  to  put  Mr.  Chase  into  the  National 
Senate."4  From  Cincinnati,  Chase's  home,  came  letters,  say- 
ing: "This  short  corner  that  he  has  turned  has  filled  us  with 
shame  and  mortification.  Henceforth  we  must  rank  him  with 
mere  partisan  politicians."  5  And  finally  the  Hamilton  County 
Free  Soil  Convention,  revived  for  the  first  time  since  1848, 
resolved  "that  as  the  Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  Senator  in  Congress 
from  this  State,  has  formally  withdrawn  from  our  party,  while 
we  regret  this  course  and  hope  that  it  may  not  be  injurious  to 
the  cause  of  freedom,  we  feel  it  to  be  our  duty  to  declare  to  the 
public  that  we  do  not  hold  ourselves  responsible  for  his  acts  or 
recognize  him  as  our  representative." 6  On  the  other  side,  Dr. 

1  W.  G.  W.  Lewis,  Biography  of  Samuel  Lewis,  388. 

2  True  Democrat,  Sept.  n,  1851.  8  Ibid.,  Sept.  27,  1851. 
*  Ibid.,  Nov.  25,  1851.  6  Ibid.,  Sept.  8,  1851. 

6  National  Era,  Sept.  18,  1851. 


CHASE  JOINS  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.  241 

Bailey,  in  the  National  Era,  deprecated  all  this  criticism,  saying 
very  justly:  "The  conduct  of  Mr.  Chase  is  clearly  in  accord- 
ance with  his  principles,  and  taking  into  consideration  his  cir- 
cumstances, we  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  he  has  not  acted 
wisely.  His  profound  sympathy  with  the  Democracy,  the  high 
estimation  in  which  he  is  held  by  a  large  portion  of  it,  make  his 
case  exceptional.  The  time  in  our  judgment  has  not  yet  come 
for  dispensing  with  an  independent  Free  Soil  organization  in 
Ohio." ! 

The  campaign  of  1851  was  a  short  one,  and  resulted  in  the 
following  vote  in  October:  Democratic  —  Wood,  145,606; 
Whig  —  Vinton,  119,538;  Free  Democratic  —  Lewis,  i6,9ii.2 
The  great  Democratic  plurality  was  due  probably  to  the  popu- 
larity of  the  new  constitution  and  of  their  candidate,  Judge 
Wood.  The  Free  Soil  vote  had  increased  a  little  over  that  of 
the  year  before,  but  was  still  less  than  half  of  the  vote  of  1848. 
Still  more  discouraging  was  the  fact  that  neither  in  the  popular 
vote  nor  in  the  legislature  did  the  party  hold  the  balance  of 
power :  and  the  days  of  bargaining  were  evidently  over.  "  It  is 
quite  safe  to  affirm,"  said  the  True  Democrat,  "  that  the  vote  for 
Mr.  Lewis  would  have  been  larger  by  some  thousands  had 
Senator  Chase  stood  by  his  party.  Many  who  had  placed 
great  confidence  in  him  as  a  leader  were  confounded  by  his 
sudden  abandonment  of  us.  Many  Whigs  supposed  the  Free 
Soil  strength  was  about  to  be  transferred  to  Locofocoism,  and 
therefore  abstained.  Thousands  of  such  did  not  vote  at  all. 
Upon  downright  earnest  Free  Soilers,  however,  we  willingly 
grant  that  Senator  Chase's  secession  produced  no  practical 
effect,  immeasurably  as  it  surprised  them.  Not  one  of  these,  so 
far  as  we  know,  followed  in  the  retrogressive  footsteps  of  that 
gentleman."  3  In  this  year,  most  of  Chase's  special  followers 
of  1849  joined  the  Democrats;  Dr.  Townshend  attended  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  and  served  on  the  Committee 
on  Resolutions ;  *  and  Stanley  Mathews  was  the  Democratic 
nominee  for  judge;  but  upon  the  mass  of  original  Liberty  men 

1  National  Era,  Sept.  n,  1851.     See  also  Oct.  2,  30,  1851. 

2  Vote  in  Whig  Almanac,  1852. 

8  True  Democrat,  Nov.  25,  1851.  4  Ibid.,  Aug.  8,  1851. 

16 


242       .         FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

Mr.  Chase's  course  had  little  influence.  Dr.  Bailey,  in  the 
National  Era,  said  that  no  disappointment  ought  to  be  felt  over 
the  vote:  "Those  we  can  rely  upon  at  all  times  are  mainly 
after  all  the  old-fashioned  Liberty  men  and  the  natural  acces- 
sions to  their  numbers  springing  from  the  adoption  of  their 
principles  ;  "  and  to  support  this  view  he  pointed  out  the  steady 
increase  in  the  anti-slavery  vote  for  Governor  since  I842.1 

In  the  fall  of  1851  there  was  held  at  Cleveland  a  national 
convention,  first  proposed  by  Indiana  and  seconded  by  the 
Western  Reserve.  There  had  been  a  growing  feeling  that  the 
time  had  come  for  a  national  organization  of  the  "  Friends  of 
Freedom,"  a  sentiment  which  had  already  found  expression  in 
Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Michigan  in  proposals  for  the  revival  of  the 
Liberty  party.  For  example,  M.  C.  Williams,  of  Hamilton 
County,  Ohio,  had  written  to  the  National  Era  :  "  The  object 
of  this  short  communication  is  to  suggest  the  propriety  of  hold- 
ing a  convention  in  Cleveland  or  Buffalo  some  time  in  May 
next,  to  reorganize  the  old  Liberty  party.  All  anti-slavery  men 
could  unite  in  carrying  out  the  principles  of  that  party.  The 
cause  has  lost  much  by  being  merged  with  the  Free  Soil  move- 
ment. Many  are  disgusted  with  the  bargain  and  sale  going  on 
in  some  legislatures  at  this  time."2 

This  convention  accordingly  proved  to  be  made  up  to  a  great 
/  extent  of  old  Liberty  men.  Dr.  F.  J.  Lemoyne,  of  Pennsylvania, 
presided,  and  of  the  four  vice-presidents  three  were  Liberty  men. 
Delegates  were  present  from  some  of  the  New  England  States, 
and  from  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  elsewhere.  Among  the 
number  were  Lewis,  Tappan,  and  Cassius  M.  Clay;  from  Ohio 
came  Giddings,  Spaulding,  Lewis,  Brisbane,  Hoffman,  Bradburn, 
and  crowds  of  others;  from  Indiana,  Julian  and  Harding;  from 
Illinois,  Eastman ;  from  Wisconsin,  Booth ;  and  from  Iowa, 
Catell  and  Clarke.  After  speeches  by  Clay,  Lewis,  Stansbery 
of  Vermont,  Julian,  and  Giddings,  the  convention  adopted 
somewhat  radical  resolutions,  demanding,  besides  the  essentials 

1  1842,    King,    5,405;  1844,    King,   8,411;    1846,    Lewis,    10,797;   1850, 
Smith,  13,747;  1851,  Lewis,  16,911.     See  National  Era,  Nov.  20,  1851. 

2  National  Era,  Feb.  20,  1851.     See  also  letters  from  Michigan,  Ibid., 
Aug.  7,  1851. 


CLEVELAND   CONVENTION,  1851.  243 

of  the  Buffalo  platform,  the  election  of  all  officers  by  the  people ; 
they  roundly  denounced  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  declared 
that  "  law  is  without  rightful  authority  unless  based  on  Justice." 
Some  resolutions  asserting  that  slavery  was  made  unconstitu- 
tional "  by  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution,"  were  referred  to 
the  next  national  convention ;  and  a  committee  from  eighteen 
States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  was  appointed  to  fix  the 
time  and  the  place  for  the  National  Nominating  Convention.1 
An  interesting  incident  of  the  meeting  was  a  slight  passage-at- 
arms  between  Lewis  and  Chase.  The  former  in  his  address 
"  discussed  with  marked  plainness  the  wisdom  and  the  grounds 
of  Senator  Chase's  recent  change  of  position.  He  proved  the 
one  to  be  not  very  far-seeing  and  the  other  wellnigh  baseless." 
Loud  calls  for  "  Chase !  Chase !  "  brought  the  Senator  to  his 
feet  with  one  of  his  characteristic  speeches.  "  Though  he  dif- 
fered —  temporarily  he  trusted  —  from  those  with  whom  he  had 
so  long  acted  ...  he  begged  none  would  for  any  light  reason 
believe  him  capable  of  faltering  in  his  support  of  a  cause  to 
which  the  best  years  of  his  life  had  been  devoted."2 

The  year  1851  ended  with  slight  encouragement  for  anti- 
slavery  men,  The  "finality"  cry  was  lulling  all  but  the  most 
independent  into  quiet,  and  seemed  in  most  of  the  States  to 
have  completed  the  ruin  of  the  Free  Soil  part}'.  The  third- 
party  press,  the  condition  of  which  was  a  sure  index  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  Free  Soil  cause,  had  dwindled  to  a  mere  fraction 
of  its  numbers  of  three  years  before.  In  Ohio,  out  of  about 
forty  Free  Soil  sheets  in  1848,  only  seven  remained.3  In 
Indiana,  the  Centreville  True  Democrat  was  the  only  paper 
remaining  out  of  eight,  and  that  was  on  the  verge  of  suspen- 
sion. In  Michigan  the  last  Free  Soil  paper,  the  Peninsular 
Freeman,  die'd  in  this  year.  In  Illinois,  of  some  eight  or  ten  in 
1848,  the  Western  Citizen  alone  remained;  but  Wisconsin  kept 

1  On  the  Cleveland  Convention,  see  Ibid.,  Sept.  11,  Oct.  2-9, 1851 ;  G.  W. 
Julian,  Political  Recollections,  119;  Magazine  of  Western  History,  IX.,  273. 

2  National  Era,  Oct.  2,  1851. 

8  The  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  Painesville  Telegraph,  Western  Reserve 
Chronicle,  Ashtabula  Sentinel,  Chardon  Free  Democrat,  Mount  Vcrnon 
Times,  and  Ohio  Star. 


244  FREE  DEMOCRACY  AND  FINALITY. 

three  of  its  original  eight,  the  Milwaukee  Free  Democrat,  Ken- 
osha  TelegrapJi,  and  Racine  Advocate.  In  Iowa  the  solitary 
True  Democrat,  always  on  the  point  of  collapse,  was  maintained 
by  the  devotion  of  its  editor,  S.  L.  Howe,  and  by  that  of  the 
little  band  of  third-party  men  in  the  State. 

The  only  encouraging  signs  were,  that  at  the  ebb  tide  of  their 
cause  anti-slavery  men  had  drawn  together  for  mutual  support; 
that  State  and  national  organization  had  begun  once  more ;  and 
that,  with  the  return  to  first  principles,  the  old  Liberty  party 
was  again  emerging  into  view.  The  fact  that  the  revival  of 
1851  was  felt  by  the  participants  to  be  something  different  from 
the  movement  begun  at  Buffalo  is  shown  by  the  abandonment 
of  the  term  "  Free  Soil  "  as  a  party  name.  From  the  action  of 
Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Wisconsin,  it  seemed  for  a  time  as  if  the 
word  "Anti-slavery"  would  take  its  place;  but,  through  the 
influence  of  the  Eastern  States  and  of  Ohio,  the  official  title  of 
the  third  party  from  1851  to  1854  was  the  "Free  Democracy," 
a  name  suggested  at  Buffalo  in  1848,  but,  curiously  enough,  not 
in  general  use  in  the  Northwest  until  the  Democratic  elements 
of  the  party  had  in  large  measure  left  it.  The  term  "  Free 
Soil "  was  for  some  purposes  more  attractive ;  but  the  single 
idea  which  it  expressed  was  not  broad  enough  to  become  the 
foundation  of  a  party.  Moreover,  it  had  been  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  now  a  dead  issue ;  and  it  had 
been  used  as  a  mere  political  adjective,  without  party  significa- 
tion, by  Whigs,  Democrats,  and  people  of  all  shades  of  opinion. 
To  these  objections  the  name  "  Free  Democracy "  was  not 
liable. 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

THE   FREE   DEMOCRACY   IN   THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1852. 

1851-1852. 

IN  1852  the  independent  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  country 
by  one  strong  effort  pulled  itself  together  and  stood  again  on 
its  feet  in  every  State.    The  initiative  came,  not  as  in  1848  from ; 
New  York,  for  there  the  Free  Soil  party  since  1849  had  been  \ 
non-existent ;  nor  from  New  England,  although  there  the  third 
party  had  maintained  itself  for  the  most  part  intact  through  the 
troubled  years  1849-51  ;  but  it  came  from  the  Northwest. 

The  Cleveland  Convention  of  1851  had  appointed  a  commit- 
tee to  call  a  National  Nominating  Convention,  and  had  sounded 
a  trumpet  call  for  the  campaign  of  1852.  Its  last  resolution 
had  been,  "  that  we  recommend  to  our  friends  in  the  several 
States  to  organize  as  soon  as  possible  "  ;  and  accordingly  in  the 
autumn  of  1851  and  the  winter  of  1852  work  began.  No  de- 
tailed account  of  this  preparation  is  necessary;  it  is  enough  to 
say  that  in  each  State  conventions  were  called,  campaign  com- 
mittees appointed,  and  in  some  cases  nominations  made  for 
State  offices.  The  southern  counties  of  Ohio,  destitute  of  anti- 
slavery  organizations  since  1849-50,  were  invaded  by  Lewis, 
James  Birney,  Brisbane,  and  others.  Everything  had  a  Liberty 
air ;  old-time  methods  were  used,  especially  that  of  employing 
paid  lecturers ;  and  of  the  nominees  for  electors,  State  officers, 
and  delegates  to  the  National  Convention,  all  but  one  were 
former  Liberty  men. 

A  like  zeal  stirred  Indiana :  conventions  of  "  Friends  of  Free- 
dom "  were  held ;  and  a  State  "  Political  Anti-Slavery  Conven- 
tion" met  and  made  nominations;  it  adopted  the  old  Liberty 


246  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

and  abolitionist  language,  although  led  largely  by  Julian,  A.  L. 
Robinson,  and  other  ex-Whigs ;  and  it  chose  a  majority  of  its 
Presidential  electors  from  Liberty  men.1  Michigan  had  to  begin 
its  organization  anew,  and  it  did  so  in  the  spirit  of  1841.  A 
"  State  Delegated  Convention  of  Friends  of  Freedom  "  met,  and 
formed  a  new  State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  after  resolving  "  that 
the  present  crisis  demands  a  reorganization  of  the  friends  of 
Liberty  in  this  state,  for  the  purpose  of  co-operating  with  those 
of  other  states  in  separate  political  action." 2  In  Illinois  we 
find  the  same  old  Liberty  phraseology  cropping  out,  when  a 
State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  led  largely  by  old-time  Liberty  men, 
resolved  "that  we  organize  a  party  of  Freedom  to  rescue  the 
Constitution  from  the  abuse  of  slaveholders  and  their  allies."  3 
Everywhere  the  methods,  aims,  and  language  of  ten  years  be- 
fore reappeared,  until  it  seemed  as  if  the  formal  adoption  of  the 
name  was  all  that  was  needed  to  bring  the  old  Liberty  party 
into  existence  again. 

In  the  spring  of  1852  the  Whig  and  Democratic  national 
conventions  were  held  at  Baltimore.  Their  action —  from  which 
few  but  the  most  optimistic  among  anti-slavery  men  expected 
anything  —  showed  conclusively  that  in  this  year  the  Free 
Democratic  or  Liberty  party,  or  whatever  it  chose  to  call 
itself,  must  stand  alone ;  for  both  of  these  conventions,  with 
entire  unanimity,  resolved  that  the  Compromise  of  1850  had 
finally  settled  the  slavery  question,  and  that  agitation  must  now 
cease. 

The  Central  Committee,  appointed  in  1851  by  the  Cleveland 
Convention,  now  issued,  through  Samuel  Lewis,  a  call  for  a 
national  convention  of  the  Free  Democracy  at  Pittsburg  on 
August  n,  requesting  friends  of  the  Buffalo  platform  to  meet 
and  choose  delegates ;  each  State  to  be  entitled  to  three  times 
the  number  of  its  Congressional  delegation.  The  real  lack 
of  any  connection  between  this  movement  and  the  Free  Soil 
outbreak  of  1848  was  clearly  seen  by  Lewis;  and  since  the 
intention  was  to  form  a  practically  new  party,  he  felt  that  much 
depended  on  the  wording  of  the  call.  "  We  may  mend  or  mar 

1  Indiana  True  Democrat,  May  27,  1852. 

2  National  Era,  July,  1-8,  1852.  »  Ibid.,  Feb.  19,  1852. 


OLD  LIBERTY  METHODS  REVIVED.  247 

this  great  cause,"  he  wrote  to  Arthur  Tappan  on  May  28  ;  and 
again,  "  I  think  I  have  seen  even  from  the  active  members  of 
the  Cleveland  Convention  a  disposition  to  go  for  Scott.  I  see 
that  our  position  is  extremely  critical  and  am  trying  not  to  in- 
crease the  repulsive  influence." l  As  finally  adopted,  the  lan- 
guage of  this  call,  in  using  the  term  "  Free  Democracy  "  instead 
of  "  Anti-slavery,"  gave  offence  to  some  people  like  Lewis,  Tap- 
pan,  and  Lemoyne ;  2  but  throughout  the  country  it  was  the  sig- 
nal for  vigorous  action.  There  was  an  outburst  of  local  meetings 
to  elect  delegates ;  the  Western  Reserve  counties,  surpassing  all 
other  regions  in  their  enthusiasm,  resolved  to  be  represented 
each  by  one  hundred  delegates.3 

On  August  u,  met  the  last  national  gathering  of  the  Free 
Democratic  party.  This  convention  was  a  large  assemblage, 
and,  in  spite  of  the  recent  destruction  of  the  Free  Soil  vote  in 
nearly  all  of  the  States,  it  was  enthusiastic.4  After  the  call  had 
been  read  and  explained  by  Lewis  to  the  satisfaction  of  Tappan, 
and  a  temporary  organization  had  been  effected,  with  Spaulding 
of  Ohio  as  chairman  and  Booth  of  Wisconsin  as  secretary,  the 
Western  Reserve  delegation,  several  hundred  strong,  amid  tre- 
mendous cheering  came  marching  in  under  a  banner  inscribed, 
"  No  compromise  with  slaveholders  or  doughfaces."  5  After  one 
day  spent  in  securing  organization,  and  part  of  a  second  day 
in  deciding  how  to  vote,  a  platform  containing  twenty  resolu- 
tions was  reported  by  Giddings.  /It  was  based  upon  the  Buffalo 
platform,  but  there  were  additional  clauses  condemning  the 
Compromise  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  demanding  the  recog- 
nition of  Hayti,  and  favoring  international  arbitration  ;  it  in- 
cluded also  declarations  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  South 
Carolina  seamen  laws,  and  of  the  duty  of  the  United  States 
government  to  protest  against  European  monarchical  interven- 
tion, together  with  other  matters  that  showed  the  hand  of  Gid- 

1  W.  G.  W.  Lewis,  Biography  of  Samuel  Lewis,  395,  397. 

2  National  Era,  July  8,  1852. 

8  True  Democrat,  July  28,  Aug.  4,  1852. 

4  National  Era,  Aug.  19-26,  1852;  G.  W.  Julian,  Political  Recollections, 
122. 

6  H.  M.  Addison,  in  Magazine  of  Western  History,  IX.,  273. 


248  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

dings.1  A  minority  report  offered  by  Gerrit  Smith  received 
little  support,  and  Giddings's  resolutions  were  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  197  to  14.  . 

The  Presidential  nomination  was  a  foregone  conclusion ;  for 
John  P.  Hale  was  the  unanimous  choice  of  the  people  repre- 
sented by  the  convention.  True,  he  had  written  a  letter 
deprecating  the  use  of  his  name;  but  this  circumstance  the 
convention  refused  to  consider,  and  he  was  nominated  on  the 
first  ballot,  by  192  votes  to  15  scattering  for  Chase,  Smith,  and 
others.  At  this  result  the  enthusiasm  of  the  assembly  found 
vent  in  nine  cheers.  The  choice  of  a  Vice-President  necessitated 
two  ballots.  There  had  been  a  strong  movement  in  favor  of 
nominating  Sam  Lewis  ;  but  to  the  surprise  of  every  one  the  first 
ballot  gave  him  only  83  votes  to  G.  W.  Julian's  104,  and  23 
scattering.  Lewis  then  withdrew  his  name  ;  and  on  the  second 
trial,  Julian  was  chosen,  to  his  own  astonishment  Lewis  was 
much  hurt  by  this  rebuff,  not  because  he  coveted  honors,  but 
because  he  thought  that  Chase,  Spaulding,  and  others  had 
worked  secretly  to  defeat  him  on  the  ground  that  he  was  too 
radical.2  Indeed,  Julian's  name  had  scarcely  been  mentioned 
up  to  the  time  of  the  ballot. 

At  this  convention  nearly  all  the  real  thorough-going  political 
anti-slavery  men  of  the  country  came  together  ;  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Chase  and  the  Barnburners,  hardly  any  one  who  had 
been  prominent  as  a  Liberty  man  or  as  a  Free  Soiler  was 
absent.  Delegates  attended  from  all  the  free  States,  and  from 
Delaware,  Kentucky,  Maryland,  and  Virginia  ;  but,  as  usual, 
the  Northwestern  men  took  the  lead.  Lewis  and  Giddings 
were  the  men  most  prominent  in  the  convention.  Also  im- 
portant were  Spaulding,  Brisbane,  and  Vaughn,  of  Ohio  ;  Hard- 
ing, of  Indiana  ;  Lovejoy,  of  Illinois ;  Paine  and  Booth,  of 
Wisconsin,  and  Howe,  of  Iowa.  The  only  Eastern  men  who 
were  equally  conspicuous  were  the  Massachusetts  contingent, 
headed  by  Henry  Wilson,  the  president  of  the  convention, 
and  Charles  Francis  Adams.  Throughout  the  convention, 

1  The  platform  was  drafted  by  Chase  :  R.  B.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  338. 

2  G.  W.  Julian,  Political  Recollections,  124;  W.  G.  W.  Lewis,  Biography 
of  Sam  uel  Lewis,  40 1 . 


HARMONY  IN  THE   CONVENTION.  249 

crowds  were  present,  and  great  mass  meetings  on  the  even- 
ings of  both  days  made  the  air  ring  with  applause.  Never 
had  a  small  third  party,  with  apparently  nothing  to  hope 
for  in  the  coming  election,  shown  a  higher  spirit  or  a  steadier 
determination. 

Some  unfriendly  papers,  notably  the  New  York  Tribune,  as- 
serted that  this  convention  had  been  "  worked  "  in  the  Demo- 
cratic interest ;  and  that  Giddings  and  Vaughn,  in  their  spite 
against  the  Whigs,  had  prevented  the  nomination  of  Chase, 
who  would  have  drawn  votes  from  Pierce — had  forced  Hale's 
nomination  in  spite  of  his  refusal  by  letter,  and  had  taken  care 
not  to  notify  him  of  his  choice  lest  he  should  decline.1  It  is 
true  that  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  at  Washington,  in- 
cluding Bailey  and  Hale,  would  have  liked  to  support  Chase ; 
but  the  latter  from  the  outset  would  not  hear  of  any  such 
scheme.2  Moreover,  the  assertion  that  it  took  any  especial 
effort  to  defeat  his  nomination  is  manifestly  absurd,  when  the 
facts  of  Chase's  position  in  1852  are  borne  in  mind.  He  had 
abandoned  the  Free  Democratic  party,  and  had  not  attended 
its  meetings  since  the  summer  of  1851;  even  in  this  year, 
when  the  Baltimore  platform  of  the  Old  Line  Democrats  proved 
too  pro-slavery  for  him,  he  insisted  that  he  was  still  Democratic. 
"  I  cannot  support  the  nominees  of  the  Baltimore  convention," 
he  wrote ;  "  but  with  an  independent  Democracy  —  with  a  demo- 
cratic Democracy  I  am  prepared  to  stand  "  ; 3  and  again,  "  If 
we  could  have  an  Independent  Democratic  rally,  thoroughly 
Democratic  in  name  and  fact,  without  wild  extravagances  and 
without  any  shrinking  from  a  bold  avowal  of  sound  principles, 
I  should  support  it  cheerfully."  4  So  long  as  Chase  maintained 
this  attitude,  there  was  no  necessity  to  steer  the  convention 
away  from  him  ;  for  by  no  thinkable  means  could  his  nomination 
have  been  forced  upon  it.  Giddings  himself,  far  from  having 
worked  for  Hale  to  the  disparagement  of  Chase  or  of  anybody 
else,  thought  Hale  an  unsuitable  candidate  because  of  the 

1  True  Democrat,  Aug.  28,  Sept.  I,  1852. 

2  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  June  28,  1852  :  Chase  MSS. 
8  National  Era,  July  15,  1852. 

4  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  June  28,  1852 :  Chase  MSS. 


250  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

letter  of  declination,  but  he  yielded  to  the  irresistible  popular 
demand.1 

The  statement  has  also  been  made  that  Chase  had  desired 
the  convention  to  ratify  the  nomination  of  Scott,  and  had  sent 
his  follower  Townshend  with  instructions  to  work  for  that  end. 
True,  a  number  of  ex-Whig  Free  Soilers,  led  in  Ohio  by  D.  R. 
Tilden,  were  anxious  to  unite  the  Free  Democrats  with  the 
Whigs  against  Pierce;  but,  although  they  made  a  stir  in  the 
spring  of  1852,  they  stood  no  real  chance  of  carrying  their 
point.  In  spite  of  Lewis's  fears,  mentioned  above,  the  likeli- 
hood that  the  Free  Democracy  would  indorse  Scott  is  not 
worth  consideration.  Not  only  did  Scott  stand  on  the  Compro- 
mise Whig  platform,  but  Chase's  Democratic  prepossessions 
make  it  impossible  that  he  could  have  supported  a  Whig ; 
and  his  private  letters  of  the  time  show  that  his  interest  in 
the  Pittsburg  Convention  centred  solely  in  its  Democratic 
character.  Both  these  stories  seem  to  be  simply  the  idle  tales 
of  disappointed  Whigs. 

Indeed,  Julian's  words  are  justified  :  "  An  assemblage  of  purer 
men  never  convened  for  any  political  purpose."2  There  was  in 
the  convention  no  plotting,  wire-pulling,  bargaining,  or  under- 
hand dealing  of  any  kind  ;  nothing  but  the  most  earnest  desire 
for  harmony  and  for  the  choice  of  the  best  men  for  leaders.  If 
the  redundant  excitement  of  the  Buffalo  Convention  was  lacking, 
so  were  also  its  trading  and  bargaining.  In  all  essentials,  the 
Free  Democratic  meeting  of  1852  bears  a  far  closer  resemblance 
to  the  Liberty  convention  which  nominated  Hale  and  King  in 
1847  ^an  to  the  Free  Soil  convention  of  1848. 

After  the  news  of  the  nomination  and  the  platform  had  been 
spread  abroad,  organization  in  the  Northwestern  States  pro- 
gressed rapidly.  To  describe  the  movement  in  detail  would  be 
merely  to  give  a  list  of  conventions  and  resolutions.  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  in  the  months  of  August  and  September 
the  old  Liberty  days  of  1843  came  again.  In  every  Northwest- 
ern State,  Liberty  men,  ex-Whigs,  anti-slavery  Democrats,  and 
all  not  under  the  influence  of  the  "  finality  "  narcotic,  ratified 

1  True  Democrat,  Aug.  28,  Sept.  i,  1852. 

2  G.  W.  Julian,  Political  Recollections,  122. 


WESTERN  RESERVE  DISTRUSTS  CHASE.  251 

with  real  enthusiasm  the  nominations  of  Hale  and  Julian,  and 
worked  as  they  had  not  done  since  1848. 

In  Ohio,  the  number  of  Free  Democratic  meetings  on  the 
Reserve  and  in  the  State  at  large  again  becomes  too  great  to  enu- 
merate. The  list  of  speakers  on  the  stump  contained  nearly  every- 
body of  importance,  and  included  an  amount  of  talent  and  zeal 
that  would  seem  able  to  convert  any  State  to  anti-slavery  princi- 
ples. Giddings,  Edward  Wade,  Root,  Brinckerhoff,  Lewis,  Spaul- 
ding,  Brisbane,  Bissell,  and  O.  P.  Brown  were  all  at  work.  On  the 
Reserve,  to  symbolize  the  healing  of  all  differences,  Townshend 
was  renominated  for  Congress  by  a  Free  Democratic  meeting; 
and  then,  with  Morse  and  Hamlin,  took  the  stump  side  by  side 
with  Riddle  and  Vaughn.  Finally,  in  September,  Chase  him- 
self, finding  Hale  Democratic  enough  to  satisfy  his  scruples, 
took  the  stump,  thus  partially  appeasing  the  Western  Reserve, 
although  his  act  did  not  by  any  means  wipe  out  all  old  scores. 
Throughout  the  summer  the  True  Democrat  had  continued  to 
cast  slurs  upon  him.  When  asked,  in  July,  what  Senator  Chase 
would  do  in  the  coming  campaign,  it  remarked :  "  That 's  a 
tough  question  to  answer  at  all  times,  but  especially  now.  .  .  . 
He  is  a  Democrat,  and  he  does  not  mean  to  forget  it  or  allow 
anybody  else  to  forget  it.  He  will  allow  no  conflict  between  his 
party  position  as  a  Democrat  and  his  conduct  as  a  public  man." 1 
Even  after  Chase  had  returned  to  the  Free  Democratic  ranks, 
the  True  Democrat  said :  "  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  our  people 
regard  the  late  past  and  present  position  of  Mr.  Chase  with  the 
most  decided  disapprobation.  ...  It  is  a  position  the  very  purest 
of  Earth's  beings  could  not  occupy  and  escape  suspicion."  2 

No  man  ever  lived  more  certain  of  his  own  rectitude  than 
was  Chase ;  but  the  open  abuse  of  the  Western  Reserve  papers 
stung  him  to  the  quick,  and  he  was  even  more  bitterly  galled 
by  the  steady  undercurrent  of  suspicion  which  attached  to  all 
his  words  and  deeds.  On  December  9,  1850,  he  wrote  to 
Hamlin:  "The  malice  with  which  all  of  us  who  thought  that 
true  policy  as  well  as  clear  duty  required  co-operation  with  the 
Old  Line  Democracy  in  1849  have  been  pursued  is  extreme.  .  .  . 
This  is  outrageous.  The  disseminators  of  these  calumnies  must 
1  True  Democrat,  July  14,  1852.  2  Ibid.>  Aug.  4,  1852. 


252  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

be  met  and  put  down."  l  Never  were  they  met  or  put  down 
until  Chase  was  in  his  grave.  The  real  difficulty  was,  that  Chase 
so  lacked  sympathy  and  imagination  that  he  was  entirely  unable 
either  to  understand  that  others  doubted  him  or  to  avoid  doubt- 
ing others ;  he  could  not  conceive  of  any  Whig  as  really  standing 
for  anti-slavery  ;  and  it  seems  never  to  have  entered  his  head  that 
his  Democratic  course,  which  seemed  to  him  perfectly  consis- 
tent, should  to  others  appear  questionable.  At  any  rate,  he 
never  hesitated  on  that  account.  In  short,  he  fell  into  the  same 
mistake  as  Birney's  in  1844:  he  did  not  scrupulously  avoid  the 
appearance  of  evil.  Chase  was  undoubtedly  sincere  and  up- 
right in  purpose,  but  almost  every  position  which  he  took  from 
1849  to  1852  had  an  unpleasant  aspect  and  required  elaborate 
explanation.  There  was  especial  reason  for  caution,  inasmuch 
as  Chase  and  his  especial  friends  were  lifted  into  office,  while 
Lewis,  Brinckerhoff,  Root,  and  Giddings  were  devoting  heart 
and  soul  to  the  thankless  task  of  third-party  work.  Every  Free 
Soiler  connected  with  the  "deal  "  of  1849  got  his  reward  :  Chase 
was  Senator ;  Townshend,  Congressman  and  member  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention ;  Morse  was  re-elected  to  the  legislature ; 
Mathews  got  a  judgeship  ;  Hamlin  was  a  member  of  the  Board 
of  Public  Works.  A  man  of  even  ordinary  insight  should  have 
realized  that  such  things  do  not  come  about  by  coincidence. 
Neither  in  his  public  utterances,  which  were  so  correct  and  color- 
less that  most  ex-Whig  Free  Soilers  thought  them  hypocritical 
nor  in  his  private  correspondence  does  Chase  for  an  instant 
notice  the  doubt  thus  naturally  suggested.  He  thanked  God 
that  he  had  never  bargained  his  principles  for  place,  "  conscious 
as  I  am,"  he  said,  "  of  my  fidelity  to  the  cause  in  every  thought, 
word,  and  act,  and  knowing  as  I  do  what  temptations  to  turn  aside 
I  have  resisted."2 

The  bitter  editorials  of  the  True  Democrat  led  Giddings,  on 
August  1 8,  to  write  a  public  letter  regretting  any  appearance  of 
unkind  feeling  toward  Chase.  As  for  Chase's  return  to  the 
Democratic  party,  he  said :  "  I  did  not  believe  his  confidence 
well  placed,  and  so  expressed  myself  freely  at  the  time,  but  I 

1  Chase  MSS. 

2  Chase  to  E.  S,  Hamlin,  Sept.  20,  1853 :  Chase  MSS. 


CHASE'S  POSITION  EXPLAINED.  253 

had  full  confidence  in  his  integrity  of  purpose.  ...  I  am  aware 
that  suspicion  and  jealousy  were  awakened  from  reports  that  he 
was  to  be  our  nominee  for  President.  That  story  was  put  forth 
without  his  consent.  He  constantly  urged  that  Mr.  Hale  was 
the  man  of  all  others  to  whom  circumstances  pointed.  ...  It  is 
due  to  our  cause  that  these  facts  be  known."  l  Appeased  by 
this  letter,  the  True  Democrat  let  the  subject  drop,  saying:  "We 
neither  cherish  nor  feel  any  unkindness  toward  Mr.  Chase.  We 
were  only  afraid  that  he  would,  in  1852,  as  he  did  in  sustaining 
Governor  Wood  and  opposing  Sam  Lewis  in  1851,  turn  his 
power  and  position  against  our  organization  with  fatal  effect.  .  .  . 
But  let  all  this  pass.  .  .  .  Only  let  him  be  fully  and  heartily  with 
us  and  we  will  stand  by  his  side  as  cordially  as  if  we  had  never 
differed  in  opinion."2 

On  September  14,  a  State  Free  Democratic  Mass  Convention 
met  at  Cleveland,  presided  over  by  Giddings.  After  Milton 
Sutliff  had  been  nominated  for  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  to 
fill  the  place  on  the  ticket  made  vacant  by  the  resignation  of 
Edward  Wade,  John  P.  Hale  was  introduced,  and  spoke  with 
great  effect  for  two  hours.3  One  of  the  most  interesting  inci- 
dents of  the  Ohio  campaign  was  a  dinner  given  to  Giddings  by 
his  constituents  of  the  "  Old  Twentieth  "  Congressional  District, 
at  Painesville,  on  September  1 8.  Morse  presided;  speeches 
were  made  by  Hamlin,  Chase,  Hale,  Wade,  and  Smith,  and 
letters  read  from  C.  M.  Clay,  Lewis,  Julian,  Judge  Jay,  Spaul- 
ding,  and  others.  It  was  a  well-earned  compliment  to  the  veteran 
anti-slavery  champion.4 

In  Indiana,  Julian,  Harding,  Cravens,  and  Robinson  were  on 
the  stump ;  but  local  organization  was  very  imperfect,  and  anti- 
slavery  men  complained  bitterly  of  their  neglect  by  the  party  at 
large.  "  We  seem  to  have  been  slighted  by  all  men,"  wrote 
one ;  "  the  friends  abroad  seem  to  have  given  us  over  to  our 
own  defence,  whilst  we  had  the  most  powerful  odds  to  contend 

1  True  Democrat,  Aug.  25,  1852. 
«  Ibid. 

8  Ibid.,  Sept.  22,  1852;  National  Era,  Sept.  30,  1852. 
4  See  Giddings's  address  to  his  former  constituents,  in  the  National  Era, 
April  7,  1853. 


254  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

against  of  any  of  the  Free  States." l  In  the  Quaker  regions, 
however,  the  old  Liberty  spirit  flamed  up  and  real  enthusiasm 
appeared.  The  ratification  meeting  in  Henry  County  was  "  a 
glorious  one,  the  largest  political  meeting  ever  held  in  the 
county;  .  .  .  the  Free  Soil  ratification  meeting  of  four  years  be- 
fore in  the  same  place  in  comparison  to  this  was  a  cold  and 
lifeless  affair  not  one  fourth  as  large."  2 

In  Michigan,  where  the  whole  work  of  organization  had  to  be 
begun  anew,  there  was  a  vigorous  campaign.  A  mass  conven- 
tion at  Ann  Arbor,  September  I,  was  addressed  by  Lewis  and 
Giddings  with  great  effect ;  and  a  second  State  Convention  at 
Kalamazoo,  September  29,  appointed  three  salaried  lecturers, 
nominated  a  full  State  and  electoral  ticket,  and  arranged  to 
start  a  Free  Democratic  newspaper.  Though  their  numbers 
were  few,  Michigan  anti-slavery  men  returned  to  the  task  of 
party-building  with  an  energy  unknown  since  1841.  "So  far 
as  my  observation  extends,"  wrote  a  correspondent  of  the 
National  Era,  "  I  think  there  has  never  been  a  period  since  the 
first  foundation  of  the  Liberty  party  when  more  zeal  and  spirit 
have  been  manifested  than  there  is  at  the  present  time."  3  In 
Illinois  the  old-time  activity  of  the  northern  counties  reap- 
peared after  a  three  years'  eclipse,  and  in  Kane,  Kendall,  Cook, 
Lake,  and  other  counties  local  agitation  began.  "  Hale  Clubs  " 
sprang  up,  and  organization  was  zealously  urged. 

The  Wisconsin  Free  Democrats,  better  off  than  any  of  their 
neighbors,  still  had  their  organization  of  1848  ;  hence  there  was 
no  such  renewed  uprising  as  took  place  in  Illinois  and  Michi- 
gan, but  rather  a  strengthening  all  along  the  line.  A  State 
Mass  Convention  at  Milwaukee,  on  September  8,  nominated  an 
electoral  ticket,  heard  an  address  by  Sam  Lewis,  and  ratified 
the  nominations  of  Hale  and  Julian  with  great  enthusiasm. 
Even  in  Iowa  the  little  band  of  anti-slavery  men  in  the  south- 
eastern counties  gained  renewed  life,  improved  their  organiza- 
tion, nominated  an  electoral  ticket,  and  assailed  the  old  parties 
with  fresh  vigor.  "  What  are  the  Free  Soilers  of  Iowa  doing?  " 

1  National  Era,  Jan.  6,  1853. 

2  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Sept.  2,  1852. 
8  National  Era,  Oct.  7,  1852. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  NORTHWEST.  255 

cried  the  True  Democrat ;  "  whilst  the  friends  of  human  freedom 
are  vigilant  in  Ohio,  New  York,  Massachusetts,  etc.,  are  they 
alone  standing  still  in  this  state?  With  proper  exertion  they 
ought  to  poll  in  November  next  three  or  four  thousand  votes. 
.  .  .  Let  us  be  up  and  doing.  Let  the  electoral  tickets  for  Hale 
and  Julian  be  distributed  in  every  neighborhood.  Many  do  not 
vote  the  Free  Soil  ticket  because  they  are  not  at  hand  on  the 
day  of  election.  Let  the  electors  see  to  this."  l 

In  this  year  there  was  for  the  first  time  a  beginning  of  national 
management  of  the  campaign.  The  Free  Soil  movement  had 
been  so  strong  in  the  Northwest  that  the  third-party  leaders  deter- 
mined to  throw  their  weight  into  that  quarter ;  and  accordingly 
Lewis,  Giddings,  Hale,  and  Julian  stumped  Ohio  and  Michigan. 
They  paid  especial  attention  to  Wisconsin :  that  state  had  made 
an  especially  good  showing  in  1848,  and  anti-slavery  sentiments 
were  widespread ;  hence  they  felt  encouraged  to  hope  that  they 
might  get  its  electoral  vote.2  In  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  Free 
Democrats,  however,  this  year's  campaign  was  intensely  dull.  It 
takes  two  to  make  a  fight;  and  the  Free  Democrats  could  pro- 
voke the  active  opposition  of  neither  of  the  old  parties.  The 
Democrats,  reverting  to  their  old  practice  of  1844,  ceased  to 
notice  them ;  and  the  Whigs  either  followed  the  same  course,  or, 
driven  to  express  themselves,  accused  the  third  party  of  merely 
running  as  stalking-horses  for  Pierce.  Between  the  two  old 
parties  the  slavery  question  was  avoided  by  common  consent ; 
and  the  same  men  who  for  years  had  been  claiming  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  as  straight  Democratic  or  Whig  doctrine,  now  found 
food  for  debate  in  the  tariff,  or  very  often  in  less  respectable 
topics.  "  The  coarsest  abuse  of  the  candidates  of  the  opposing 
party,"  wrote  a  correspondent  of  the  National  Era,  "  little  tales 
of  what  General  Pierce  once  did  and  what  General  Scott  once 
said,  appeals  to  sectarian  prejudice,  —  any  claptrap  forms  the 
staple  of  party  appeals.  The  discussion  of  the  great  question, 
the  only  vital  one,  is  carefully  avoided."  3 

So  recent  had  been  the  revival  of  the  Free  Democratic  party 

1  Iowa  True  Democrat,  Oct.  27,  1852. 

2  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  Aug.  25,  1852. 
8  National  Era,  Oct.  21,  1852. 


TiTCr 


256  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

that  in  the  summer  elections  it  did  not  make  a  large  figure.  In 
the  Ohio  October  election  the  vote  for  judge  stood  as  follows : 
Democratic  —  Caldwell,  146,795  ;  Whig — Haynes,  128,560;  Free 
Democratic  —  Sutliff,  22,167.  ^n  Indiana  no  returns  for  the  state 
vote  are  accessible ;  it  was  probably  greater  than  that  in  1849,  but 
how  much  greater  cannot  be  accurately  stated.  The  complaints 
of  lack  of  organization  were  bitter.  "  We  have  already  since 
the  state  election  received  more  than  a  dozen  letters,"  said  the 
True  Democrat,  "  stating  that  no  tickets  were  had  in  the  respec- 
tive townships  of  the  writers  for  State  officers."  J  In  Julian's 
old  district  the  vote  for  Congress  stood :  Democratic  —  Groce, 
6,153;  Whig  —  Parker,  7,181;  Free  Democratic  —  Hubbard, 

1,451- 

In  Congressional  nominations  the  party  did  not  feel  strong 
enough  for  much  independent  action,  although  it  was  decidedly 
more  active  than  in  1848  or  1850.  In  Ohio,  nominations  were 
made  in  sixteen  districts,  as  against  seven  in  1850,  and  six  in 
1848  ;  but  the  Liberty  party  had  frequently  surpassed  this  mark, 
nominating  in  eighteen  districts  as  far  back  as  1843.  In  Michi- 
gan, inveterate  habit  proved  too  strong  for  the  Free  Democrats, 
and  in  the  Second  District  they  indorsed  Williams,  the  Whig 
nominee.  This  action  was  not,  however,  the  complete  self- 
surrender  of  1850;  for  Williams  had  been  a  Free  Soiler  in  1848, 
and  was  still  so  strong  an  anti-slavery  man  that  he  pronounced 
openly  in  favor  of  the  Pittsburg  platform.2  In  Indiana  a  single 
third-party  nomination  was  made,  and  in  Illinois  there  were 
four  Free  Democratic  candidates  in  the  northern  districts,  as 
compared  with  one  in  1850  and  with  six  Liberty  candidates  in 
1846.  In  Wisconsin  a  complete  ticket  appeared  in  all  three  dis- 
tricts, but  the  interest  centred  as  usual  in  the  First  District, 
where  Durkee  had  been  elected  in  1850  by  coalition  with  Whigs, 
and  where,  it  was  hoped,  that  party  would  now  again  help  him ; 
but  however  much  some  of  the  Whigs  would  have  liked  to 
support  Durkee,  the  managers  dared  not  take  such  action  in  a 
national  campaign.  Consequently,  a  Whig  candidate  was 
nominated ;  whereat  the  Free  Democrats,  in  their  irritation, 

1  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Oct.  28,  1852. 

2  Cleveland  True  Democrat,  Sept.  29,  1852. 


VOTE   OF  THE  FREE  DEMOCRACY. 

turned  the  Whigs'  cry  back  upon  them  by  asserting  that 
Durand,  the  Whig,  was  run  only  in  order  to  defeat  Durkee 
and  let  in  Wells,  the  Democrat.1 

In  November  Pierce  received  a  great  majority  of  the  elec- 
tors, and  he  carried  every  Northwestern  State.2  Everywhere 
the  most  striking  fact  was  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  Whig 
party.  The  falsity  of  its  position  with  regard  to  the  Com- 
promise, together  with  its  complete  failure  to  meet  the  pressing 
question  of  the  hour,  made  its  efforts  useless  ;  and  the  country 
had  discarded  it  for  the  triumphant  Democracy. 

What  was  the  lesson  of  the  election  for  the  new  Free  Demo- 
cratic party?  It  had  found  itself  unable  in  this  single  campaign 
to  make  up  for  the  losses  caused  by  the  return  of  the  Barn- 
burners and  the  "Conscience"  Whigs  in  1849-50;  but  it  had 
shown  vitality.  As  Dr.  Bailey  said :  "  It  was  not  until  the  year 
preceding  the  late  election  that  the  political  antislavery  men  or 
the  Free  Democrats  began  the  work  of  a  separate  national 
organization.  The  fact  that  in  so  short  a  time  they  were  able 
to  disentangle  themselves  and  after  a  short  canvass  cast  up- 
wards of  150,0x30  votes  for  Freedom  is  evidence  of  power."3 
The  most  important  fact  brought  out  by  the  election  of  1852  is 
that  the  centre  of  gravity  of  political  anti-slavery  action  had 
swung  into  the  West.  The  canvass  of  1852  showed  little  rela- 
tive change  in  New  England,  where  the  three  parties  continued 
with  the  same  rigidity  which  had  characterized  them  since  1844. 
In  the  Middle  States  the  Barnburners  of  1848  were  now  the 
strongest  supporters  of  Franklin  Pierce,  and  the  rejuvenated 
Free  Democracy  polled  little  more  than  the  old  Liberty  vote. 
In  the  Northwest,  however,  where  immigration  had  been  active, 

1  Racine  Advocate,  Sept.  29-Oct.  20,  1852. 

2  In  the  Northwest  the  vote  stood  as  follows :  — 

Pierce.  Scott.  Hale. 

Ohio       ....     169,220  152,526  31,682 

Indiana  ....      95,340  80,900  6,929 

Michigan    .     .    .       41,842  33^53  7,237 

Illinois   ....      80,597  64,934  9,966 

Wisconsin  .     .     .       31,658  22,240  8,814 

Iowa 17,762  I5>855  1,606 

8  National  Era,  Dec.  9,  1852. 

17 


258  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

where  since  1848  the  fluctuation  in  anti-slavery  votes  had  been 
extreme,  the  greatest  revival  took  place ;  the  new  party  cast 
only  15,000  votes  less  than  the  Free  Soilers  of  1848,  and  it  also 
cast  a  larger  third-party  vote  than  even  New  England.1 

Who  furnished  these  Free  Democratic  votes?  In  New  Eng- 
land the  Liberty  men,  and  most  of  the  same  Whigs  and  Demo- 
crats who  had  revolted  in  1848;  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania, 
few  besides  old-time  Liberty  men.  In  the  Northwest,  it  seems 
certain  that  the  Free  Soil  party  had  by  1850  lost  nearly  all  of 
its  original  Whig  and  Democratic  converts  of  1848;  but  unlike 
the  party  in  New  York  it  mounted  again,  in  1852,  nearly  to 
the  voting  strength  which  it  had  reached  in  1848.  Apparently 
it  regained  few  or  none  of  its  former  Democratic  members  ;  for 
there  is  no  assertion  that  any  Barnburners  returned  to  the  third- 
party  ranks  in  1852,  and  the  great  increase  of  the  Democratic 
vote  in  every  Northwestern  State  raises  a  strong  presumption 
against  any  such  supposition.  The  Whig  vote  also  increased 
largely,  but  in  a  smaller  ratio  than  the  Democratic;  and  it 
seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  some  Whigs  may  have  voted 
the  Hale  ticket.  This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  the  com- 
parison between  the  votes  for  State  and  Presidential  tickets  in 
Illinois  and  Michigan.  The  main  increase  since  1850,  however, 
j  must  have  come  in  part  from  some  young  men  voting  for  the 
j  first  time,  but  chiefly  from  the  stay-at-homes,  who  were  very 
numerous  during  the  years  of  1849—51.  This  class  of  persons, 
usually  not  participating  in  politics,  —  clergymen,  professional 
men,  and  hard  workers  who  scarcely  knew  to  what  party  they 
belonged,  —  were  interested  to  turn  out  in  a  Presidential  contest; 
and  they  swelled  the  vote  of  the  Free  Democrats. 

In  the  Congressional  elections,  Giddings  and  Edward  Wade 
were  returned  from  Ohio  ;  but  Townshend  in  his  gerrymandered 
district  was  defeated ;  and  in  Wisconsin  Durkee  lost  his  seat. 
The  Western  Reserve  was  still  the  only  place  in  the  Northwest 

1  The  comparison  is  shown  by  the  following  table :  — 

New  England.  Middle.  Northwest. 

1844 25,754  19,071  17,358 

1848 77,286       132,592      81,161 

1852 57,143       34,203      66,234 


GIDDING&S  CAMPAIGN.  259 

where  anti-slavery  men,  unassisted,  could  hope  to  elect  their 
candidates  ;  and  all  Ohio  was  jubilant  over  the  eighth  success  of 
Giddings.  "I  never  knew,"  said  a  correspondent,  "so  much 
personal  or  political  opposition  concentrated  in  one  Congressional 
campaign.  The  Whig  press  was  weekly  gorged  with  defamation 
that  had  in  vileness  no  depths,  in  bitterness  no  bounds.  No  lie 
was  too  big  for  utterance.  My  heart  sickens  at  the  recital  of 
the  immoralities  that  blackened  Whig  electioneering." l  "  Our 
friends  abroad,"  said  the  True  Democrat,  4<  cannot  well  measure 
the  extent  of  the  Free  Democratic  triumph  in  electing  Giddings 
and  Wade.  These  two  districts,  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth, 
were  formed  expressly  to  defeat  the  Free  Democracy.  Against 
Giddings  the  contest  was  waged  with  merciless  ferocity."  Even 
B.  F.  Wade,  unmindful  of  his  old  partnership  with  Giddings  in 
law  and  in  anti-slavery,  and  of  Giddings's  refusal  to  attack  him 
in  1851,  took  the  stump  against  the  anti-slavery  champion.2 

The  Presidential  vote  of  the  third  party  showed  so  great  a 
growth  since  1850  that  few  were  disappointed  ;  and  throughout 
the  Northwest,  except  where  Wisconsin  Free  Democrats  sor- 
rowed over  Durkee,3  the  general  feeling  was  joyful.  They  had 
released  themselves  from  connection  with  the  old  parties  ;  they 
had  given  their  testimony  against  slavery;  and  their  ranks  seemed 
to  have  all  the  real  living  enthusiasm  that  existed  in  the  country. 
Moreover,  the  idea  became  prevalent  that  the  Whig  party  was 
dead,  and  that  now  was  the  time  to  strike  for  a  share  of  the 
heritage.  A  great  cry  went  up  for  organization,  especially 
from  regions  like  Indiana  and  Iowa.  "  I  would  just  suggest  to 
our  friends  in  the  East,"  said  a  writer  from  the  latter  State, 
"  whether  in  view  of  our  infancy  and  weakness  in  Iowa  and  the 
peculiar  state  of  the  public  mind  among  us  —  which  is  now  very 
unsettled,  just  in  the  condition  to  be  favorably  impressed  —  it 
would  not  be  right  and  expedient  for  them  to  lend  us  some 
assistance."  *  "  All  that  is  needed,"  said  the  Cleveland  True 
Democrat,  "  is  for  the  Free  Democracy  to  be  firm  and  active,  to 

1  True  Democrat,  Oct.  20,  1852. 

2  Ibid.,  Sept.  22,  1851. 

8  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Nov.  4-17,  1852. 
4  National  Era,  Jan.  20,  1853. 


260  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. 

organize,  and  through  that  organization  to  assault  the  public 
mind." l  "  All  that  is  needed,"  came  the  cry  from  Michigan, 
"  is  a  fair  circulation  of  documents."  2  Everywhere  the  deter- 
mination to  keep  on  working  was  manifest.  Said  the  Indiana 
True  Democrat :  "  The  Free  Democrats  of  Indiana  have  no  in- 
tention of  grounding  their  arms  "  ; 3  and  the  Racine  Advocate 
fairly  expressed  the  general  feeling  when  it  said  :  "  We  want  it 
perfectly  understood  that  we  cannot  be  conquered ;  that  agita- 
tion of  our  principles  cannot  be  prevented  ;  and  that  we  mean 
to  grow  more  and  more  earnest  with  every  assumption  of  the 
slave  power."  4 

1  Jan.  5,  1853.  2  National  Era,  Jan.  13,  1853. 

8  Quoted  ibid.)  Nov.  25,  1852.  4  Nov.  10,  1852. 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

EXPANSION   OF  THE   FREE   DEMOCRATIC  PARTY. 

1853- 

So  great  was  the  impetus  given  to  the  anti-slavery  cause  by 
the  election  of  1852  that,  without  any  slackening  of  pace,  its 
activity  was  carried  over  into  1853,  and  in  this  last  year  of 
its  life  the  Free  Democratic  party  made  the  best  record  in  its 
history.  Circumstances  were  propitious:  the  national  Whig 
party  was  overthrown,  and  its  members  were  dismayed  and 
bewildered  ;  the  Democratic  party,  inflated  beyond  its  real 
strength,  was  beginning  to  be  torn  by  feuds.  Already  signs 
of  the  coming  chaos  in  politics  had  begun  to  appear  in  the 
sudden  importance  assumed  all  over  the  country  by  the  agi- 
tation for  prohibition,  or,  as  it  was  called  from  its  origin,  "  the 
Maine  Law."  In  such  circumstances,  men  of  all  parties,  in  the 
autumn  of  1852  and  in  the  beginning  of  1853,  began  to  look 
with  a  certain  admiration  at  the  clear-cut,  aggressive  principles 
of  the  Free  Democracy;  at  an  enthusiasm  different  from  the 
quarrels  and  bitterness  in  the  old  parties  ;  and  at  a  confidence 
and  hope  which  had  risen  with  renewed  life  from  the  defeats 
of  the  years  1849  to  1851. 

From  all  sides  reports  of  encouraging  signs  among  mem- 
bers of  the  old  parties  poured  in  from  correspondents  to  the 
National  Era  and  to  other  Free  Democratic  papers.  "  Since 
the  Presidential  election,  it  is  not  an  uncommon  occurrence  to 
hear  Whigs  and  Democrats  say  that  they  have  cast  their  last 
vote  for  slavery;  there  is  a  general  demand  for  information."1 
"  The  Free  Democrats  were  never  in  higher  spirits  than  at  the 
1  From  Bridgeport,  Ohio.  National  Era,  Jan.  13,  1853. 


\  l    ^ 

U 


262  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

present  time.  The  Whig  party  have  all  been  taken  aback ;  .  .  . 
they  now  begin  to  manifest  a  willingness  to  pause  and  inquire 
what  are  the  principles  of  Free  Democracy."  1  "I  have  heard 
many  Whigs  and  Democrats  say,  '  I  would  have  voted  with  all 
my  heart  for  Hale  if  there  were  any  hope  of  his  election.'"2 
"  Since  the  Presidential  election  is  over  there  seems  to  be  quite 
an  interest  felt  by  Whigs  and  Democrats  to  obtain  information 
in  regard  to  our  principles,  as  it  is  pretty  generally  conceded 
on  all  sides  that  the  next  contest  will  be  between  the  Free  Dem- 
ocrats and  the  Old  Line  Democrats."3  "  A  prominent  Democrat 
who  has  served  several  terms  in  the  State  Senate  stated  to  me 
that  he  believed  the  Free  Democratic  party  would  eventually 
become  the  ruling  party  and  that  whichever  party  should  be 
defeated  at  the  coming  election  would  mostly  fall  in  with  us."4 

The  Whig  Lafayette  Courier  said  :  "  We  have  heard  it  esti- 
mated that  in  the  event  of  the  defeat  of  General  Scott  the  Whig 
party  will  be  disbanded,  and  of  the  fragments  will  be  formed  a 
grand  National  anti-slavery  party,  which,  by  including  the  Lib- 
erty party,  the  Free  Soil  party,  the  abolitionists,  and  that  portion 
of  the  Democrats  who  sustain  the  nominees  but  not  the  finality 
resolutions  of  the  platform,  may  be  able  to  control  the  National 
elections  of  the  future.  That  such  a  party  will  be  organized  we 
have  good  reason  to  believe."6  The  Democratic  Valparaiso 
Practical  Observer  remarked  in  similar  vein :  "  We  heard  num- 
bers say  that  if  their  votes  would  elect  J.  P.  Hale  he  should 
have  them.  The  Free  Democracy  are  really  the  most  thor- 
oughly Democratic  party  in  existence.  If  they  are  not  the 
organized  party  that  is  to  regenerate  our  National  policy,  purg- 
ing it  of  slavery,  aristocracy,  and  corruption,  they  are  at  least 
the  forerunner  of  that  party,  as  John  the  Baptist  was  of  the 
Christian  Church."6  From  Batavia,  Illinois,  came  the  words: 
"  As  the  noble,  honest  Hale  said  at  Aurora  in  this  county  there 

1  From  Unionville,  Union  County.     Ibid.,  Jan.  6,  1853. 

2  From  Erie  County.     Ibid.,  Dec.  9,  1852. 

3  From  Preble  County.     Ibid.,  Dec.  23,  1852. 

4  From  Jacksonville,  Indiana.     Ibid.,  Oct.  28,  1852. 
6  Quoted  in  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Oct.  14,  1852. 

6  Quoted  in  National  Era,  Nov.  25,  1852,  March  31,  1853. 


DISSATISFIED  MEMBERS  OF  OLD  PARTIES.       263 

would  be  plenty  of  Free  Soilers  after  election,  so  it  has  turned 
out.  Many  Whigs  are  now  turning  where  they  can  carry  out 
their  principles.  Some  Democrats  —  and  perhaps  as  many  of 
the  other  party  —  have  voted  their  last  Old  Line  ticket."  l 

With  such  signs  to  cheer  them,  the  Free  Democrats  of  the 
Northwest  were  encouraged  to  strain  every  nerve.  In  four  of 
the  States,  where  there  were  only  minor  elections  in  1853.,  the 
activity  of  the  party  was  directed  to  organization ;  but  in  Ohio 
and  Wisconsin,  which  elected  State  tickets  this  year,  events  of 
the  highest  significance  took  place ;  they  will  be  considered  in 
full  after  .a  brief  review  of  the  year  in  the  other  States. 

In  the  autumn  of  1852,  Indiana  rang  with  a  cry  for  organiza- 
tion. Indignant  Free  Democrats  in  back  counties  wrote  pro- 
tests to  the  National  Era  and  the  Indiana  True  Democrat.  "  There 
has  never  to  my  knowledge  been  an  anti-slavery  lecture  delivered 
in  the  county,"  said  a  correspondent  from  Fort  Wayne ;  "  Free 
Soil  speakers  seem  to  be  afraid  of  us."  2  "  We  shall  lose  thousands 
of  votes  in  this  campaign  simply  for  the  want  of  organization," 
said  the  True  Democrat ;  and  it  proposed  a  permanent  society 
of  some  sort,  "  call  it  what  you  please  —  anti-slavery  or  anything 
else  —  with  local  auxiliaries."3  A  State  Convention  at  Indiana- 
polis, on  October  21,  1852,  presided  over  by  Nathaniel  Field, 
one  of  Indiana's  earliest  abolitionists,  appointed  a  Committee 
on  Permanent  Organization  and  called  a  convention  for  January 
J3»  T853,  to  form  a  State  League.4  This  second  convention  met 
accordingly,  and  under  the  presidency  of  S.  C.  Stevens  reiter- 
ated the  Pittsburg  platform  of  1852,  and  adopted  the  consti- 
tution of  a  State  Free  Democratic  Association,  which  was  "  to 
continue  in  existence  for  four  years  from  January  13,  1853, "and 
the  object  of  which  should  be  "  to  disseminate  the  principles  of 
the  Free  Democracy."  5  Provisions  were  made  for  local  asso- 
ciations, and  by  the  end  of  the  year  such  bodies  were  formed  in 
at  least  seven  counties.  To  the  value  of  this  work  the  spring 
elections  in  March,  1853,  bore  testimony  ;  for,  according  to  the 
Indiana  Free  Democrat,  the  vote  of  the  third  party  showed  an 

1  National  Era,  Jan.  27,  1853.  2  Ibid.,  Dec.  23,  1852. 

8  Indiana  True  Democrat,  Oct.  14,  1852.         4  Ibid.,  Nov.  4,  1852. 
6  National  Era,  Feb.  10,  1853. 


264  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

increase  of  some  1,500  over  that  thrown  in  November,  "the 
spontaneous  tribute  of  8,000  persons  to  our  principles  and  our 
cause."  l 

To  keep  up  interest,  another  well  attended  State  Convention 
was  held  on  May  25,  at  which  G.  W.  Julian  and  S.  C.  Stevens 
spoke  and  S.  P.  Chase  delivered  the  address  of  the  day.  This, 
said  the  Free  Democrat,  "  was  by  far  the  best  State  Convention 
they  have  ever  had  in  Indiana."2  In  the  summer,  Lewis,  of 
Ohio,  amid  his  arduous  duties  in  his  own  State,  found  time  to 
lend  aid ;  and  by  the  end  of  the  year  local  organization  was  in  a 
better  condition  than  at  any  time  since  the  days  of  the  Liberty 
party.  Julian  was  the  life  of  the  cause.  From  January  to  De- 
cember he  was  hard  at  work  lecturing  and  organizing,  and  was 
cheered  everywhere  by  the  most  encouraging  signs.  The  jour- 
nal of  the  tireless  campaigner  is  full  of  interest.  "  Labor  till  the 
campaign  of  1856  closes  seems  to  be  the  general  demand,"  he 
wrote,  January  5./ "The  anti-slavery  cause  is  more  decidedly 
onward  than  ever  before.  .  .  .  The  Democracy  is  awfully  swol- 
len, whilst  all  of  Whiggery  capable  of  salvation  is  preparing  to 
come  into  our  embrace.  There  is  a  good  time  coming."  He 
repeatedly  said :  "  I  have  never  seen  the  Free  Democrats  in  this 
state  so  much  encouraged."  3 

In  Michigan  there  was  much  the  same  state  of  affairs.  A 
State  Convention  on  January  12,  at  Jackson,  devoted  its  atten- 
tion to  organization  and  to  the  establishment  of  a  newspaper  at 
Detroit.  Moreover,  it  adopted  a  series  of  racy  resolutions,  to  the 
effect  that  "  in  the  present  swollen  condition  of  the  Democratic 
party  and  the  shrivelled  condition  of  the  Whig  party  we  see 
evidences  of  disease  " ;  and  that  "  the  first  and  most  important 
measure  of  the  Free  Democrats  of  Michigan  is  an  organization 
in  every  town  in  the  state." 4  Thereupon  county  conventions 
began  to  meet  and  to  push  the  matter  of  local  organization  : 

1  Quoted  ibid.,  March  24,  1853.     The  Indiana  Free  Democrat  was  the 
same  paper  as  the  Indiana  True  Democrat.     Name  changed  January,  1853. 

2  Quoted  ibid.)  June  16,  1853.     See  G.  W.  Julian,  Speeches  on  Political 
Questions,  83-101. 

8  MS.  diary  of  G.  W.  Julian. 
4  National  Era^  Feb.  10,  1853. 


ORGANIZATION  CONTINUES  ACTIVE.  265 

as  in  Indiana,  the  result  appeared  in  the  town  elections,  in 
which,  in  many  places,  the  Free  Democratic  vote  gained  pro- 
digiously. No  general  campaign  was  attempted,  however,  nor 
did  the  Free  Democrats  throw  their  energies  into  politics  so 
much  as  into  organization.  While  the  State  struggled  over  the 
question  of  a  "  Maine  Law,"  the  third  party  worked  actively  in 
its  own  field. 

In  Illinois  the  Free  Democrats  began,  even  before  the  result 
of  the  Presidential  campaign  was  known,  to  prepare  for  the 
work  of  1856;  and  here,  as  in  Indiana,  bitter  complaints  of 
lack  of  organization  spurred  them  on.  "  I  wish  I  could  rap 
the  knuckles  of  our  leading  Free  Soilers,"  wrote  a  correspond- 
ent of  the  National  Era  from  Cumberland  County;  "would 
you  believe  it  that  we  in  this  part  of  the  state  never  obtained 
the  Hale  and  Julian  ticket  nor  do  we  know  yet  whether 
there  was  one  formed  in  this  state  or  not.  Such  neglect  is 
insufferable !  " 1 

The  Illinois  State  Free  Democratic  Convention  met  at  Ottawa 
on  May  18,  and  took  steps  for  an  efficient  organization.  A  plan 
was  adopted  for  invading  "  Egypt"  with  a  series  of  conventions, 
and  arrangements  were  made  for  a  permanent  campaign  head- 
quarters, with  salaried  agents.  The  convention  devoted  much 
attention  to  the  recently  enacted  Negro  Exclusion  Law,  con- 
demning it  as  "a  foul  blot  on  the  statute  book,  a  reproach  to 
our  people,  an  attempt  to  nullify  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  a 
destruction  of  the  equality  of  citizenship  as  guaranteed  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States."  Any  one  who  attempted 
to  enforce  the  act  was  to  be  considered  as  "  a  traitor  to 
humanity."  2  As  in  Michigan,  the  principal  care  of  the  third- 
party  men  was  the  hard  task  of  maintaining  their  paper,  the 
Western  Citizen. 

Later  in  the  year  the  "  Association  "  system  of  Indiana  was 
introduced  and  adopted  largely  in  the  northern  counties.  In 
the  fall  elections  there  was  little  attempt  to  nominate  inde- 
pendent tickets,  the  leaders  preferring  to  wait  until  their 
organization  was  completed.  In  Will  County  the  effect  of  the 

1  National  Era,  Dec.  23,  1852. 

2  Chicago  Congregational  Herald,  June  4,  1853. 


266  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

changed  state  of  national  politics  was  visible  in  a  Free  Demo- 
cratic and  Whig  combination,  which  elected  two  of  its  can- 
didates. In  Kane  County  the  Whig  convention  adjourned 
without  nominating,  in  order  to  leave  the  field  open  in  favor 
of  the  Free  Democrats ;  whereupon  a  bolt  of  "  Silver  Gray " 
Whigs  set  up  a  straight  party  ticket.1  These  straws  showed 
the  direction  of  the  wind  as  much  as  did  the  brisk  breezes  in 
Ohio  and  Wisconsin,  for  Whig  and  Free  Democratic  coalitions 
were  an  entire  innovation  in  Illinois. 

Iowa,  the  only  State  in  the  Union  in  1852  to  increase  its 
third-party  vote  over  that  of  1848,  kept  pace  with  Illinois  in 
the  "  off  year"  of  1853.  On  the  very  day  of  the  Presidential 
election,  the  Iowa  True  Democrat  had  urged  :  "We  do  hope  the 
friends  of  freedom  in  Iowa  will  go  right  to  work  to  organize  for 
a  future  effective  action.  In  this  we  have  always  failed  ;  let  us 
fail  no  longer."  2  WTith  steady  courage  the  little  band  of  aboli- 
tionists kept  at  work.  On  February  22,  1853,  a  State  Free 
Democratic  Convention  met,  and,  like  that  of  Indiana,  formed 
the  constitution  of  a  State  Association.  Dr.  Shedd,  S.  L.  Howe, 
J.  W.  Catell,  and  other  veterans  were  present,  committees  were 
appointed,  an  effort  was  made  to  secure  organization  in  every 
county  and  a  State  ticket  was  nominated.  Then  officers  for 
the  State  Association  were  chosen,  and  a  set  of  courageous 
resolutions  embodying  the  Pittsburg  platform  and  the  Maine 
Law  was  adopted.3  Following  this  action,  local  associations 
were  formed  in  several  counties. 

The  comparatively  quiet  organization  in  the  States  just 
described,  important  as  it  was  as  an  index  of  Free  Democratic 
purpose  and  feeling  in  1853,  sinks  into  insignificance  when 
compared  with  the  extremely  interesting  elections  in  Ohio  and 
Wisconsin,  the  only  States  in  which  the  Free  Soil  party  had 
maintained  an  unbroken  existence  since  1848. 

After  the  election  of  1852  all  Ohio  was  vociferous  for  organi- 
zation. "  If  we  had  only  a  few  enterprising  speakers  to  take 
the  field,"  said  a  writer  from  Putnam  County,  "we  might  have 
more  than  trebled  our  present  vote.  There  has  not  been  a 

1  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  17-28,  1853.  2  Nov.  3,  1852. 

8  Ibid. 


OHIO  CONVENTION  NOMINATES  LEWIS.  267 

regular  Free  Soil  speech  delivered  in  the  County  to  my  knowl- 
edge, except  one." l  "  Let  temporary  Free  Democratic  organi- 
zations be  continued  for  the  next  four  years,"  urged  the 
Western  Reserve  Chronicle;  "let  occasional  meetings  be  held, 
have  speeches,  hold  discussions." 2  In  accordance  with  this 
suggestion,  local  Free  Democrats  at  Ravenna,  Akron,  and  else- 
where on  the  Reserve  began  to  form  associations,  "to  continue 
in  force  until  the  close  of  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1856."  3 
The  State  Central  Committee,  on  November  17,  issued  a  call  for 
a  State  Convention  in  January,  and  urged  organization.  "  We 
stand  on  the  eve  of  important  events,"  it  said,  "  and  must  be 
prepared  to  meet  them.  .  .  .  The  old  parties  are  undeniably  in 
a  difficult  position,  their  old  issues  are  obsolete.  Free  men  of 
Ohio,  it  is  in  you  and  for  you  to  help  work  out  the  great  re- 
sult. .  .  .  Let  the  truth  be  known,  circulate  documents,  hold 
meetings,  agitate."4 

The  convention  of  January  12,  1853,  proved  important. 
BrinckerhofT  presided,  and  nearly  all  of  the  leading  Free  Demo- 
crats were  present,  except  those  who  were  in  Congress.  At  the 
beginning  arose  a  serious  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  plat- 
form. R.  P.  Spaulding,  a  somewhat  recent  Democratic  con- 
vert, reported  from  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  that  the 
Pittsbtirg  platform  should  be  modified  by  introducing  clauses 
in  favor  of  strict  construction,  free  trade,  and  direct  taxation. 
When  Root  and  some  other  ex-Whigs  raised  objection,  Spauld- 
ing, a  hot-headed  man,  lost  his  temper  and  indulged  in 
personalities,  until  cries  of  "  Question "  cut  off  debate  and 
the  platform  as  reported  was  adopted.  The  remainder  of  the 
session  went  on  in  a  different  spirit;  when  it  was  moved  to 
nominate  Sam  Lewis  again,  the  enthusiasm  of  the  conven- 
tion broke  out  in  uncontrollable  cheers  and  cries.  The  veteran 
rose,  and  with  deep  feeling  tried  to  withdraw,  urging  his  age, 
his  labors,  and  frequent  previous  campaigns,  but  in  vain :  the 
Convention  refused  to  hear  him.  "  We  '11  make  you  Governor 
yet !  "  shouted  Edward  Wade ;  and  Lewis  again  gave  way,  with 

1  National  Era,  Dec.  2,  1852. 

2  Quoted  ibid.,  Nov.  11,  1852. 

8  True  Democrat,  Nov.  17,  1852.  4  Ibid. 


268  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

tears  in  his  eyes,  deeply  touched  by  the  affection  and  enthu- 
siasm of  the  meeting.1  "  God  bless  you,  Father  Lewis,"  said 
Judge  Lee,  as  the  tears  flowed  down  his  cheeks;  when  he 
grasped  the  hand  of  his  old  standard-bearer  in  both  his  own ; 
"  God  bless  you,  I  believe  we  shall  not  fight  this  evil  much 
longer;  let  us  fight  the  harder."2 

The  rest  was  all  harmony.  Resolutions  were  passed  indors- 
ing Giddings  and  Townshend;  then  Lewis  made  an  eloquent 
plea  in  behalf  of  Chase,  which  Spaulding,  Brown,  and  Brincker- 
hoff  seconded,  and  Chase  also  was  included  in  the  approving 
resolution.  Hamlin,  Parrish,  and  Wade  also  spoke,  urging  ob- 
livion for  past  differences  and  confidence  for  the  future ;  and  after 
adopting  a  resolution  in  favor  of  prohibition,  and  establishing 
a  central  Free  Democratic  organ  at  Columbus,  the  convention 
adjourned.  The  close,  as  described  by  the  True  Democrat,  was 
a  reminder  of  the  early  days  of  the  Liberty  party.  "  It  had 
been  a  hard  day's  work,  but  at  the  end  one  spirit  animated  all. 
Every  rude  feeling  was  hushed,  all  unkindness  forgotten.  Har- 
mony reigned.  As  speaker  after  speaker  dwelt  upon  the 
necessity  of  organization,  as  Samuel  Lewis  near  midnight  in 
his  loftiest  eloquence  bade  free  men  live  to  work  and  do  their 
whole  duty  to  God  and  man,  the  Convention  in  a  body  and 
amid  the  deepest  enthusiasm  adjourned,  resolving  to  act  out  the 
heroic  sentiments  of  this  heroic  man."  3 

The  initiative  of  this  convention  was  the  signal  for  a  steady 
and  vigorous  campaign.  The  free  trade  resolution  caused  a 
little  grumbling,  but  even  the  True  Democrat  said  that  it  was  not 
worth  the  time  spent  on  it,  and  the  harmony  of  the  party  re- 
mained unimpaired.  Campaign  work  began  in  April  on  a  scale 
hitherto  unapproached.  Lewis,  as  always,  threw  heart  and  soul 
into  the  work,  and  repeated  his  brilliant  canvass  of  the  State  in 
1846.  In  May,  Giddings  joined  him  on  the  stump,  and  later 
Chase  and  Edward  Smith ;  and  these  four  visited  every  county 
in  Southern  Ohio.  By  June  the  campaign  on  the  part  of  the 
Free  Democrats  had  reached  a  height  surpassing  that  of  the 

1  True  Democrat,  Jan.  19,  1853;  National  Era,  Jan.  27,  1853. 

2  W.  G.  W.  Lewis,  Biography  of  Samuel  Lewis,  406. 
8  True  Democrat,  Jan.  19,  1853. 


FREE  DEMOCRATIC  ENTHUSIASM.  269 

year  before.  Conventions  were  organizing,  local  speakers  agi- 
tating, a  campaign  song-book  published  in  Cleveland  was  being 
distributed,  and  the  Central  Committee,  to  supplement  the 
spontaneous  local  meetings,  arranged  for  Lewis  a  grand  tour  of 
the  state,  which  was  to  begin  July  20  in  Clermont  County,  to 
take  in  succession  all  the  counties  in  the  south,  east,  north,  and 
centre,  and  to  close  on  October  4,  just  before  the  election.1 

Meanwhile  the  other  parties,  with  a  lassitude  in  great  contrast 
to  the  intense  activity  of  the  Free  Democrats,  had  held  their 
conventions  and  made  their  nominations.  The  Democrats  on 
January  30  nominated  Medill,  and  for  the  fourth  time  repudi- 
ated the  national  platform  by  re-adopting  the  anti-slavery  reso- 
lution of  1848,  1850,  and  1851.  Had  Chase  and  Townshend 
desired  again  to  seek  Democratic  associations,  the  Ohio  party 
was  ready  to  receive  them;  but  Chase  had  apparently  had 
enough  of  changing  partners,  and  he  stayed  with  the  Free 
Democrats.  The  Whigs,  on  February  22,  by  a  vote  of  179  to 
43,  nominated  N.  Barrere,  one  of  the  Fillmore  school,  over  L. 
D.  Campbell,  a  Free  Soiler  of  1848;  and  they  showed  their 
futility  as  a  party  by  passing  perfunctory  resolutions  in  favor  of 
protection  and  against  the  Democratic  State  government,  avoid- 
ing any  reference  to  slavery. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Democrats  had  an  excellent 
platform  from  an  anti-islavery  point  of  view,  the  Free  Soilers 
paid  them  very  little  attention ;  coalition  with  the  Old  Line 
Democracy,  no  matter  what  their  platform  might  be,  was  no 
longer  considered  a  possibility.  The  case  of  the  Whigs,  how- 
ever, was  different.  So  great  had  been  the  discouragement 
of  the  latter  party  after  the  election,  and  so  frequent  were 
Whig  expressions  of  approval  of  Free  Soil  principles,  that  the 
interest  of  this  election  of  1853  all  centred  in  the  effort  by  the 
Free  Democrats  to  attract  Whig  votes.  "  Calculate  as  you 
may,  Whigs,"  said  the  True  Democrat,  "  count  up  your  figures, 
shout  out  your  party  cry,  it  will  all  be  in  vain;  for  your  think- 
ing voters,  every  anti-slavery  Whig,  will  mock  at  you  and  spurn 
an  organization  which  has  so  brutally  defied  the  claims  of  jus- 

i  True  Democrat^  June  22,  1853;  National  Era,  Aug.  11-18,  1853;  W. 
G.  W.  Lewis,  Biography  of  Samuel  Lewis,  415. 


2/0  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

tice."  l  "  The  very  fact  that  the  Whig  press  is  disputing  the 
point  whether  the  Whig  organization  be  dead  or  alive  proves 
that  it  is  dead.  .  .  .  The  question  arises  whether  at  this  junc- 
ture it  is  possible  to  bring  together  the  true  men  of  all  parties 
.  .  .  to  make  a  party  which  shall  be,  —  in  the  nation  and  State, 
—  for  freedom.  That  question  we  answer  affirmatively.  We 
know  full  well  the  partisan  Democrat  will  deny,  and  the  partisan 
Whig  scout,  our  assertion.  But  among  the  people  we  hear  in  a 
hundred  ways  the  hope  expressed  that  a  new  organization  will 
spring  up,  the  belief  boldly  uttered  that  there  should  and  must 
be  one.  It  needs  only  time,  and  in  the  coming  election  the  suc- 
cess of  that  bold,  good  man  Sam  Lewis,  as  Governor  of  Ohio."  2 
Said  the  Ashtabitla  Sentinel:  "  We  are  informed  that  many 
leading  men,  and  probably  nine-tenths  of  the  voters  of  the 
Whig  party,  are  desirous  of  disbanding  and  casting  their  votes 
and  influence  for  Justice  and  Liberty.  Circumstances  induce 
us  to  believe  that  the  candidates  of  the  Whig  party,  at  least  a 
portion  of  them,  are  anxious  to  withdraw."3  These  claims,  of 
course,  met  with  derision  at  the  hands  of  the  regular  Whig 
party  organs.  Said  the  Sandtisky  Commercial  Register:  "  The 
True  Democrat  betrays  the  weakness  of  its  cause  by  the  anxious 
eagerness  with  which  it  would  seize  recruits  by  the  collar  and 
drag  them  nolens  volens  into  the  meagre  ranks  of  the  Free 
Democracy"  ;  4  and  the  Cleveland  Herald  scouted  the  idea  that 
the  great  Whig  party  "  would  yield  to  a  faction  of  some  30,000 
and  do  its  bidding."  5  The  State  Journal  felt  solemn  horror  at 
the  proposal  of  an  alliance  with  the  Free  Democrats  on  the 
basis  of  anti-slavery  opinions,  for  "  these  are  sentiments  that 
the  Whig  party  never  did  and  never  will  proclaim."  6 

Some  Whig  papers,  however,  as  well  as  some  individual 
Whigs,  used  different  language.  The  Cleveland  Forest  City 
queried :  "  Can  antislavery  Whigs  longer  affiliate  with  dough- 
face material?  ...  Is  it  not  better  to  dissolve  partnership  with 

1  True  Democrat,  June  i,  1853.  2  Ibid. 

8  Quoted  in  National  Era,  June  16,  1853. 
4  Quoted  in  True  Democrat,  June  29,  1853. 
6  Quoted  ibid.,  June  8,  1853. 
6  Quoted  ibid.,  June  29,  1853. 


ACCESSIONS  FROM  THE    WHIGS.  2? I 

these  men  rather  than  continue  a  connection  the  fruits  of  which 
are  treachery,  pro-slavery,  and  defeat?"  The  Cincinnati  Gazette 
admitted  that  the  Whig  party  had  "  abandoned  its  principles  so 
far  that  it  differed  little  from  the  Democratic,  and  had  no  real 
principle  in  the  State  election  " ;  2  and  the  Medina  Whig  spoke 
out  boldly:  "  What  shall  the  Whig  party  do?  We  love  the  old 
Whig  name,  but  a  mere  name  is  nothing.  .  .  .  There  is  no  rea- 
son why  the  liberal  Whigs  of  Ohio  and  the  Free  Democrats 
should  not  unite." 3  The  New  York  Tribune,  always  a  power 
with  the  Northwestern  anti-slavery  Whigs,  threw  its  great  influ- 
ence in  favor  of  one  of  Greeley's  favorite  ideas,  —  a  union  of 
Free  Democrats  and  Whigs  on  the  Maine  Law.  By  the  end  of 
July  it  became  evident  that  this  advice  would  be  followed. 
From  Portage  County  came  a  "tremendous  call"  signed  by  four 
hundred  names  of  men  of  all  parties,  demanding  a  "  People's  " 
convention,  to  unite  the  issues  of  temperance  and  anti- slavery. 
This  was  the  signal  for  similar  calls  in  Cuyahoga,  Columbiana, 
and  Ashtabula  counties,  and  in  the  senatorial  district  of 
Huron,  Erie,  Sandusky,  and  Ottawa.  Chase  was  doubtful;  but 
the  majority  of  Free  Democrats  found  in  this  movement 
nothing  but  matter  for  congratulation,  and  joined  in  it  heart  and 
soul.  Giddings,  in  a  letter  to  Baldwin,  of  Cleveland,  said  that 
if  it  was  an  honest  movement,  no  mere  question  of  names 
should  hold  back  the  Free  Democrats,  and  added :  "  If  either  the 
Whigs  or  Democrats  would  embrace  the  truth  and  maintain  the 
inalienable  rights  of  all  men  to  liberty  I  would  at  once  say,  Let 
the  Free  Democracy  disband.  ...  If  the  movement  fails  it  will 
be  solely  because  of  bad  management  or  bad  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  leaders,  not  the  people." 4  Further  to  mark  his  favor, 
Giddings  advised  the  Free  Democrats  of  Ashtabula  to  propose 
a  "  People's  "  movement,  although  as  an  organization  they  had 
absolutely  nothing  to  gain,  since  they  were  in  a  great  majority 
over  both  the  other  parties  combined. 

The  Portage  County  fusion  took  place  with  perfect  harmony, 
through  a  full  mixed  ticket,  with  a  Free  Democrat  at  the  head ; 

1  Quoted  in  True  Democrat,  June  I,  1853. 

2  National  Era,  June  23,  1853.  8  Quoted  ibid. 
4  Ibid.,  Sept.  i,  1853. 


2/2  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

and  the  same  success  was  attained  in  Ashtabula,  as  well  as  in 
the  Huron  and  Erie  senatorial  district,  where  a  Free  Soil  con- 
vention ratified  the  previous  temperance  nomination.     In  two 
places,  however,  friction  resulted  from  the  suspicions  entertained 
by  Free  Democrats  with  regard  to  Whig  desire  for  union.     In 
Columbiana  County,  after  a  Free  Soil  ticket  had  been  nomi- 
nated, a  "  People's"  convention  met  and  selected  a  Maine  Law 
ticket,   which    included    only   one    of    the    Free    Democrats; 
nothing    was    said    about    slavery    in   the   platform.      There- 
upon the  Free  Democratic  candidates,  by  advice  of  the  local 
papers,  the  New   Lisbon   Aurora,    and   the    Garrisonian  Anti- 
Slavery  Bugle,  refused  to  withdraw,  and  though  Giddings  and 
Chase  both  urged  them  to  abandon  this  position,  the  local  com- 
mittee was  obdurate.1     In  Cleveland,  a  "  People's  "  convention, 
after  considerable  friction,  nominated  for  Cuyahoga  County  a 
joint  temperance  and  anti-slavery  ticket,  which  the  True  Demo- 
crat was  willing  to  support;  but   R.  P.   Spaulding  and  some 
other  indignant  ex-Democrats  induced  the  Central  Committee 
to  call  a  regular  county  convention.     The  result  was  a  meeting 
with   a   rather   irregular   organization,   including   at   least   one 
contested     delegation.      In   a   stormy   session    A.    G.    Riddle, 
Edward  Wade,  and  J.  C.  Vaughn,  editor  of  the  True  Democrat, 
against  the  strenuous  opposition  of  Spaulding,  succeeded  in  lay- 
ing on  the  table  resolutions  to  run  a  separate  ticket.     Spaulding 
then,  as  usual,  lost  his  temper  completely,  refused  to  let  Giddings 
address  the  meeting  because  he  was  not  a  delegate,  and  threat- 
ened so  loudly  to  make  a  party  nomination,  whether  this  partic- 
ular convention  agreed  or  not,  that  Giddings,  Riddle,  Wade, 
Vaughn  and  the  others  left  in  disgust,  and  let  the  excited  ex- 
Democrats  fulfil  their  purpose.2     These  events  were  noticed  in 
the  Democratic  Plain  Dealer  as  follows :   "  The  fusionists  taken 
in  and  done  for — the  Whigs  sick  of  the  bargain  —  Vaughn  in 
a  towering  passion  —  a  free  fight  all  round  —  the  kettle  has  all 
boiled  over  —  the  fat  is  in  the  fire  —  the  ingenious  net  thrown 
out  to  catch  the  Free  Soilers  is  full  of  gudgeons."  3 

1  National  Era,  Sept.  I,  15,  29,  1853;  True  Democrat,  Sept.  21,  1853. 

2  True  Democrat,  Sept.  12,  1853. 
8  Quoted  ibid.,  Sept.  28,  1853. 


COALITION  ON  MAINE  LAW  ISSUE.  273 

In  spite  of  these  local  difficulties,  the  tendency  of  sentiment 
in  the  State  at  large  continued  steadily  in  favor  of  fusion.  The 
Columbian,  the  central  organ  of  the  party,  said :  "  We  should 
deem  it  our  duty  to  accept  any  aid  which  could  honorably  be 
obtained  in  the  election  of  men  of  the  right  stamp  to  the  legis- 
lature, and  should  not  hesitate  ...  to  join  in  any  open  and  fair 
co-operation  with  those  disposed  to  join  it,  or  to  sustain,  for 
offices  not  legislative,  capable  men  of  other  parties." 1  Lewis 
was  the  only  candidate  for  Governor  of  avowed  temperance 
principles ;  but  Allen,  the  Whig  candidate  for  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor, was  known  to  be  in  favor  of  the  Maine  Law.  With 
a  desire  to  further  good  feeling,  Buckingham,  the  Free  Demo- 
cratic nominee  for  Lieutenant- Governor,  resigned;  and  his 
party,  after  ascertaining  that  Allen  fully  indorsed  the  Pittsburg 
platform  in  regard  to  slavery,  gladly  supported  the  latter.2  The 
Holmes  County  Whig,  by  no  means  a  radical  paper,  asserted  that 
Barrere,  the  Whig  candidate  for  Governor,  had  sent  to  his  Central 
Committee  a  letter  of  resignation  in  favor  of  Lewis,  but  that  it 
had  been  suppressed.3  Whether  or  no  this  assertion  were  true, 
the  idea  became  current  that  the  Whigs  were  to  support  Lewis. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  Free  Democrats,  with  memories 
of  1849,  took  a  prudent  middle  ground.  The  Columbian,  the 
official  mouthpiece,  said:  "That  there  are  many  persons  who 
have  heretofore  acted  with  the  Whig  party,  hoping  against 
hope  that  that  party  would  redeem  itself  from  the  domination  of 
slavery,  we  are  well  aware.  .  .  .  These  we  would  invite  to  go 
along  with  us.  Shall  our  organization  be  changed  or  our  prin- 
ciples modified  ?  We  are  not  sticklers  for  forms  or  party  names ; 
yet  we  would  not  abandon  them  unnecessarily  to  resort  to  new 
ones.  .  .  .  Let  not  the  liberal  antislavery  Whig  be  alarmed 
because  we  call  it  Democratic.  .  .  .  Every  true  Whig  is  a  dem- 
ocrat. Our  principles  and  our  party  are  making  rapid  strides 
toward  victory ;  let  us  not  be  in  haste  to  outrun  as  a  party  the 
tide  of  our  principles."  4 

1  Quoted  True  Democrat,  Sept.  13,  1853. 

2  Ibid.,  Oct.  4,  1853;  Ohio  Columbian,  Sept.  15,  1853. 
8  Western  Reserve  Chronicle,  Oct.  6,  1853. 

4  Ohio  Columbian,  July  14,  1853. 
18 


2/4  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

Meanwhile,  in  the  midst  of  complete  political  stagnation 
among  the  old  parties,  the  Free  Democratic  campaign  con- 
tinued with  ever-increasing  enthusiasm.  County  conventions 
all  over  the  State  pressed  organization  farther  than  ever  before, 
holding  a  greater  number  of  meetings  than  in  any  other  year, 
except  perhaps  at  the  height  of  the  Free  Soil  revolt  of  1848. 
Lewis  gave  the  country  an  exhibition  of  stump-speaking  such 
as  is  seldom  seen :  he  spoke  nearly  every  secular  day  for  over 
four  months  in  fifty  counties,  traversing  not  only  the  Western 
Reserve,  but  regions  such  as  Scioto,  Lawrence,  and  Gallia  in 
the  south,  and  Stark,  Holmes,  Tuscarawas,  and  Coshocton  in 
the  centre,  places  where  the  Free  Democracy  was  hardly  known. 
In  the  midst  of  these  tremendous  efforts  he  also  found  time  to 
make  an  excursion  into  Indiana,  and  to  preside  over  the  Fourth 
Annual  Christian  Anti-Slavery  Convention  at  Cincinnati  in  May, 
at  which  William  Lloyd  Garrison  strongly  urged  his  views. 
Wherever  Lewis  went,  his  eloquence  made  a  profound  impres- 
sion. Of  his  visit  to  Darke  County,  an  ultra-Hunker  region,  an 
enthusiastic  hearer  wrote :  "  When  Mr.  Lewis  was  portraying 
the  working  of  the  fugitive  slave  act  you  could  see  the  tear  of 
sympathy  fall  down  the  cheeks  of  some  of  the  old  veterans  of 
the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties."  In  Warren  County  he 
"  completely  electrified  his  audience  and  frequently  moved  them 
to  tears  "  ;  and  —  still  more  noteworthy  —  in  Montgomery 
County,  at  a  place  where  there  had  never  been  an  anti-slavery 
speaker,  his  eloquence  led  numbers  of  the  Old  Line  to  subscribe 
for  the  Columbian}- 

By  September,  Chase,  Giddings,  Smith,  Hamlin,  Root,  Bris- 
bane, Julian  of  Indiana,  and  others  were  in  the  field.2  Wade, 
Spelman,  Riddle,  and  Vaughn,  for  example,  went  to  every  town 
in  Cuyahoga  County.  "  The  movement  goes  bravely  on,"  said 
the  Western  Reserve  Chronicle  ;  "  in  no  year  except  in  a  Presi- 

1  Ohio  Columbian,  April  14,  1853. 

2  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  during  the  canvass  Chase  found  time  to 
write  a  letter  to  Edgerton,  —  a  Democratic  member  of  Congress  from  Ohio, 
who  had  spoken  of  Chase  as  no  Democrat,  —  reiterating  his  familiar  argu- 
ments as  to  the  Democratic  character  of  the  third  party.    See  National  Era, 
Dec.  22,  1853. 


LEWIS'S  SUCCESSFUL   CAMPAIGN.  2?$ 

dential  campaign  has  there  been  anything  like  it."  l  When 
finally  election  day  came,  the  vote  revealed  a  new  order  of 
things.2  The  Democrats  had  carried  the  State  by  a  large  major- 
ity, but  the  total  vote  polled  was  70,000  less  than  that  of  the  year 
before.  The  local  Whig  party  had  fallen  to  85,000,  the  smallest 
vote  since  the  party  was  organized.  Not  even  the  national 
Whig  party  could  show  greater  demoralization.  The  Free 
Democrats,  on  the  contrary,  had  raised  their  vote  on  minor 
offices  to  almost  the  exact  Van  Buren  vote  of  1848,  and,  still 
better,  Lewis  had  succeeded  in  polling  over  50,000.  In  five 
Western  Reserve  counties  and  in  Clinton  County  the  Free 
Democrats  were  ahead  of  both  Whigs  and  Democrats.  The 
Whigs  were  first  in  thirteen  counties  only.  In  sixteen  other 
counties  the  Free  Democrats  were  ahead  of  the  Whigs ;  they 
had  thirteen  members  of  the  legislature  to  the  Whigs'  twenty; 
and  the  difference  between  Barrere  and  Lewis  was  so  slight 
that  the  Free  Democrats  felt  themselves  within  striking  dis- 
tance of  the  beaten  party. 

All  were  jubilant.  Said  the  True  Democrat,  in  comment  on 
the  election :  "  The  Old  Line  Democracy  had  no  foe  to  meet 
outside  of  the  Free  Soil  sections.  They  walked  over  the  track 
elsewhere  carrying  even  undisputed  Whig  districts.  But  the  tug 
of  conflict  was  felt  wherever  a  Free  Soil  basis  existed,  and  there 
even  when  the  odds  were  against  us  the  pro-slavery  Democrats 
were  laid  low." 3  "  This  is  a  glorious  result  indeed,"  said  the 
Columbian,  "  and  one  which  will  tell  upon  the  future  growth  of 
our  party  in  other  states  as  well  as  Ohio.  ...  It  is  generally 
believed  by  all  parties  that  the  old  triangular  war  is  at  an  end  in 
Ohio.  .  .  .  The  anti-slavery  men  of  Ohio  have  accomplished  the 
great  work  over  which  we  all  so  much  rejoice  by  pursuing 

1  Oct.  6,  1853. 

2  It  stood  as  follows :  — 

Democratic.  Whig.  Free  Democratic. 

Medill    147,663  Barrere   85,820  Lewis          50,346 

Myers    148,981  Allen      127,272 

Bartley  149,582  Backus    96,689  Hitchcock  35,373 

See  Whig  Almanac,  1854. 
»  Oct.  14,  1853. 


2/6  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  EXPANSION. 

a  practical  policy.  They  have  run  after  no  abstractions  or 
phantasms.  Definite  objects  and  a  probable  mode  of  accom- 
plishing them  have  been  kept  constantly  before  the  people."  1 
"  Thousands  of  Liberal  Whigs,"  said  the  National  Era,  "  separ- 
ated from  their  party  in  1848  and  have  since  acted  with  the 
Independent  Democrats.  Thousands  have  this  year  followed 
their  example;  thousands  more  are  now  ready  to  join  the  new 
party.  What  a  prospect  opens  to  the  friends  of  Liberty  in 
Ohio !  " 2  The  Whig  press,  chastened  by  its  severe  defeat, 
showed  a  milder  attitude  than  ever  toward  the  Free  Democrats ; 
even  the  Cleveland  Herald,  "  Silver  Gray  "  at  all  times,  while 
cautioning  people  not  to  think  that  the  fusion  in  Cuyahoga  and 
in  other  counties  was  permanent,  went  so  far  as  to  say:  "We 
admit  that  there  are  and  ever  have  been  reasons  which  should 
induce  all  considerate  anti-slavery  men  to  act  together."  3  Still 
more  significant,  the  Whig  Forest  City  proceeded  after  the  cam- 
paign to  unite  with  the  True  Democrat.  The  abuse  of  such 
"  postmaster "  papers  as  the  Ohio  Patriot  and  the  Geauga 
Republic?-  counted  for  little  in  the  face  of  the  general  feeling  in 
favor  of  a  new  movement.  "  This  is  the  spirit  now  abroad  in 
Ohio,"  said  the  True  Democrat;  "  and  they  who  overlook  it 
know  not  the  stuff  whereof  it  is  made  nor  the  solidity  of  its 
purpose ;  for  those  who  war  against  that  spirit  shall  be  as  dry 
stubble  wherewith  the  People  shall  kindle  their  fires  of  inde- 
pendence and  with  their  blaze  consume  them  forever." 6 

Exhausted  from  his  labors,  but  jubilant,  Samuel  Lewis  wrote  a 
parting  word  to  the  "  Friends  of  Freedom  "  in  Ohio,  urging  them 
not  to  abate  their  exertions,  but  rather  to  increase  them.  "  My 
last  year  of  hard  service  is  probably  performed,"  he  said  ;  "  my 
health  has  been  providentially  preserved  this  year,  but  here 
such  labors  must  end.  ...  I  am  not  before  you  a  candidate  for 
any  office,  probably  never  shall  be  again ;  so  you  must  allow  me 
to  press  this  matter  upon  you.  Yes,  you  must  now  lay  out  your 

1  Quoted  in  Racine  Advocate,  Nov.  8,  1853. 

8  Dec.  i,  1853.  8  Oct.  ii,  1853. 

4  Daily  Forest  City  Democrat  (successor  to  the  True  Democrat  and  the 
Forest  City}.     Nov.  I,  1853. 

5  Ibid. 


FREE  DEMOCRATIC  SATISFACTION.  277 

work  for  success ;  the  country  and  public  sentiment  expect  such 
a  result  and  everything  is  ripe  for  it.  Great  moral  and  political 
reforms  do  not  grow  spontaneously;  hard  work  and  much  hard 
work  must  be  performed,  but  you  no  longer  need  labor  without 
expecting  success.  .  .  .  And,  thank  God,"  ended  the  veteran 
joyously,  "that  he  enables  you  to  aid  in  such  a  glorious  work."1 
In  December  there  came  from  the  State  Free  Democratic 
Committee  a  prophetic  address.  It  furnished  a  complete  plan 
for  organization,  with  forms  of  petitions,  projects  for  local  asso- 
ciations, and  provisions  for  four  paid  lecturers  to  be  constantly 
in  the  field  throughout  1854.  "The  Independent  Democracy," 
it  said,  "  has  a  great  work  before  them  for  the  next  two  years. 
.  .  .  With  efficient  organization  we  may  possibly  secure  the 
State  ticket  next  fall.  We  certainly  can  elect  four  to  five 
[Representatives]  and  perhaps  a  majority  of  the  members  of 
Congress.  We  can  in  1855  elect  our  Governor  and  Legisla- 
ture, which  will  not  only  effect  the  State  reforms  which  we 
desire,  but  also  give  us  a  Senator.  ...  Be  courageous.  The 
enemy  is  strong,  but  God,  the  people,  and  truth  are  stronger; 
the  day  of  small  things  is  past."2 

1  National  Era,  Dec.  I,  1853. 

2  Ibid.,  Jan.  26,  1854. 


CHAPTER    XVlll. 

WHIGS   AND   FREE    DEMOCRATS   IN   WISCONSIN. 

1853- 

WHILE  Ohio  was  carrying  on  a  triumphant  campaign,  Wis- 
consin had  been  undergoing  a  different  but  an  equally  signifi- 
cant experience.  The  election  of  1852  had  inspired  the  Free 
Democrats  of  that  State  with  the  same  enthusiasm  as  it  had 
aroused  elsewhere  in  the  Northwest,  and  also  with  a  serious 
determination,  the  general  purpose  of  which  is  well  expressed 
by  the  following  extract :  "  It  seems  to  me  that  the  next  four 
years  will  be  decisive  as  to  the  existence  of  the  Free  Democratic 
party  as  such.  Unless  we  can  step  into  the  rank  of  one  of  the 
first  parties  as  to  numbers  we  can  hardly  in  my  opinion  main- 
tain our  organization.  .  .  .  We  must  receive  large  accessions 
from  the  liberal  Democrats,  and  must  absorb  the  liberal  Whigs 
unless  that  party  adopts  our  principles.  Are  we  not  a  little 
severe  toward  them  when  we  call  them  without  any  exception 
a  defeated  faction?  The  term  faction,  too,  is  hardly  in  good 
taste.  ...  A  more  perfect  and  thorough  State  organization  is 
what  we  now  need,  with  an  increase  of  Free  Soil  papers,  espe- 
cially German.  A  great  and  systematic  and  prolonged  effort 
must  be  put  forth."1 

Such  sentiments  as  the  foregoing  clearly  animated  the  State 
Free  Democratic  Convention  which  met  on  January  21,  1853. 
In  a  very  full  session,  presided  over  by  General  J.  H.  Paine, 
and  comprising  most  of  the  leading  anti-slavery  men  of  the 
State,  a  platform  was  adopted  and  a  full  organization  urged. 
As  the  foregoing  letter  indicated,  the  main  interest  of  Wiscon- 

1  From  a  letter  to  the  National  Era,  dated  Racine,  Dec.  i,  1852  :  Ibid., 
Jan.  6,  1853. 


PROPOSALS  FOR    WHIG   COALITION.  279 

sin  Free  Democrats  lay  in  their  relation  to  the  Whigs;  but 
with  great  good  sense  their  convention  forbore  to  suggest  the 
question  of  coalition,  trusting  to  time  to  settle  the  matter. 
During  the  winter,  Whig  papers,  while  insisting  on  the  life  and 
vigor  of  their  party,  began  to  discuss  the  possibility  of  a 
"People's"  ticket  in  the  coming  contest  for  the  Governorship. 
Much  was  said  as  to  the  identity  of  principle  between  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  and  Free  Democrats,  and  no  pains  were  spared 
by  Whigs  to  cultivate  a  friendly  feeling  between  the  two  bodies, 
—  a  novel  sentiment  in  Wisconsin,  for  up  to  this  time  soft  words 
between  Whigs  and  abolitionists  were  the  exception,  and  abuse 
or  indifference  the  rule.  Some  of  the  Free  Democrats  received 
the  unaccustomed  courtesy  rather  ungraciously;  and  Booth,  in 
the  Milwaukee  Free  Democrat,  took  care  to  inform  the  Whigs 
that  there  were  just  two  methods  by  which  they  could  effect  a 
union  with  the  Free  Democracy, —  either  by  adopting  the  Pitts- 
burg  platform  or  by  dissolving  the  Whig  party.1  Neither  of 
these  conditions  was  likely  to  be  agreeable  to  a  Whig.  The 
natural  candidate  in  case  of  fusion  was  the  popular  Governor 
Farvvell,  elected  in  1851  by  Whig  and  Free  Soil  votes.  During 
the  discussion,  the  Free  Democrat  made  the  mistake  of  claiming 
him  as  a  third-party  man,  an  utterance  which  irritated  the  Whigs 
to  no  purpose,  and  brought  out  the  following  protest  from  the 
more  practical  Kenosha  Telegraph:  "It  is  folly,  or  something 
worse,  to  insist  on  calling  Governor  Farwell  a  Free  Democrat. 
He  is  not  so  distinctively  any  more  than  thousands  of  other 
Whigs  in  the  State ;  but  he  is  a  very  good  Governor,  and  for 
that  reason  should  be  supported."2 

In  the  face  of  a  great  Democratic  clamor,  the  two  parties 
appointed  their  conventions  on  successive  days  of  June,  three 
months  earlier  than  usual;  and  the  general  understanding  seems 
to  have  been  that  Governor  Farwell  was  to  be  renominated  by 
both.3  This  step  would  probably  have  been  taken  with  entire 
unanimity,  but  for  the  unfortunate  fact  that  Farwell  absolutely 

1  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  May  21,  1853. 

2  Quoted  in  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  April  25,  1853. 

8  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  April  29,  May  30,  1853;  Racine  Advocate^ 
April  20,  May  18,  1853. 


280      WHIGS  AND  FREE  DEMOCRATS  IN  WISCONSIN. 

refused  to  run.  Having  in  its  programme  no  provision  for  this 
emergency,  the  Whig  convention  lost  its  head  and  adjourned 
without  nominating.  The  Free  Soil  convention  the  next  day 
finding  all  plans  for  union  destroyed,  proceeded  to  nominate  a 
full  ticket  of  its  own,  headed  by  E.  D.  Holton.  Although  no 
resolution  in  favor  of  prohibition  was  adopted,  the  candidates 
were  all  avowed  temperance  men,  a  useful  fact  in  view  of  the 
Maine  Law  agitation  then  overrunning  the  country.1 

Since  the  Whigs  had  failed  to  nominate,  and  Greeley  in  the 
New  York  Tribune  distinctly  advised  the  Whigs  of  Wisconsin 
to  coalesce  with  the  Free  Democrats  on  the  Maine  Law  issue, 
many  of  the  latter  hoped  that  they  would  have  the  field  to 
themselves.  "  They  [the  Whigs]  may  rally  this  fall,"  wrote  one 
enthusiastic  correspondent  of  the  National  Era,  "  but  it  is  doubt- 
ful. Farwell  told  some  of  our  folks  that  the  Whigs  ought  not  to 
have  called  a  convention  or  even  talked  of  nominating."  2  Al- 
though many  Whigs  would  without  doubt  have  been  willing  to 
support  Holton,  such  a  stretch  of  self-abnegation  was  more 
than  could  be  expected  of  the  majority  of  Wisconsin  poli- 
ticians of  that  party;  consequently,  to  the  disappointment  of  the 
Free  Soilers,  a  second  Whig  convention  in  September  nomi- 
nated a  party  ticket  headed  by  H.  S.  Baird.  A  month  before 
the  election,  coalition  seemed  as  far  off  as  it  had  been  in  the 
previous  year;  but  at  the  State  Fair  at  Watertown  another 
effort  was  made,  chiefly  by  certain  anti-slavery  Whigs,  who 
called  a  "  People's "  convention.3  This  meeting  nominated  a 
ticket  selected  from  the  candidates  already  in  the  field,  with 
Farwell  at  the  head ;  but  again  Farwell's  modesty  wrecked  the 
scheme,  for  he  positively  refused  to  run,  and  Baird  would  not 
withdraw.  The  "  People,"  however,  were  not  to  be  balked ; 
and  on  October  21,  scarcely  two  weeks  before  the  election,  the 
Whig  managers  agreed  to  place  Helton's  name  at  the  head  of 
their  ticket.  All  the  Whig  and  Free  Soil  candidates  not  on  the 
ticket  then  withdrew,  and  thus  after  much  tribulation  the  fusion 
was  completed. 

1  National  Era,  June  23,  1853;   Wisconsin  State  Journal,  June  9,  1853. 

8  National  Era,  July  7,  1853. 

8  Watertown  Chronicle,  Oct.  12,  1853. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  "PEOPLE'S"    TICKET.         281 

With  so  short  a  time  for  a  canvass,  and  weighted  down  by 
the  incubus  of  Baird's  persistence  in  running,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  "  People's  "  ticket  was  decisively  beaten.1  The  Demo- 
cratic vote  was  remarkably  full,  considering  the  fact  that  it  was 
an  "  off"  year;  but  the  "  People's"  vote  and  that  for  Baird  fell 
nearly  6,000  short  of  the  combined  Free  Democratic  and  Whig 
votes  of  1852.  One  reason  was  that  the  Free  Democrats  made 
the  Maine  Law  the  principal  issue  in  the  campaign.  Indeed, 
one  of  them,  who  was  on  the  "  People's  "  ticket,  has  since  said 
that  at  the  time  he  forgot  all  about  his  own  candidacy  in  his 
work  for  prohibition.2  This  agitation  so  alarmed  the  Germans 
in  the  eastern  counties  that  they  cast  a  heavy  vote  for  the  Demo- 
cratic ticket. 

Notwithstanding  the  difficulty  of  bringing  about  this  coalition 
owing  to  Farwell's  inconvenient  lack  of  ambition,  there  was 
little  real  opposition  on  either  side:  only  one  Whig  paper  ob- 
jected, and  that  not  on  grounds  of  principle.  From  the  first, 
everybody  felt  the  desirability  of  coalition,  and  the  only  diffi- 
culties arose  as  to  the  method  of  obtaining  it.  In  these  negotia- 
tions and  nominations  we  find  a  curiously  close  parallel  to  the 
Free  Soil  and  Whig  fusion  in  Michigan  in  1849,  and  the  result 
is  apparently  similar.  In  Wisconsin,  however,  the  motives  un- 
derlying the  coalition  were  essentially  different.  The  Whigs  in 
both  cases  wanted  primarily  to  overthrow  the  Democratic  rule 
in  the  State ;  but  in  Michigan  they  had  the  prestige  of  members 
of  a  victorious  national  party,  whereas  the  Wisconsin  Whigs 
were  in  1853  in  the  depths  of  prostration  after  an  overwhelm- 
ing State  and  national  defeat.  In  Michigan  there  was  no 
demand  for  a  new  anti-slavery  party  in  1849,  whereas  in  Wis- 
consin this  sentiment  appears  constantly  in  1853.  "  The  Whig 
party  of  this  state,"  said  the  State  Journal  in  May,  "  as  a  gen- 
eral thing  are  just  as  much  opposed  to  slavery  and  are  doing 
and  will  do  just  as  much  toward  ridding  the  country  of  this 

1  The  vote  stood :  — 

Democratic.  Independent.  Scattering. 

Barstow  30,405  Holton      21,886  Baird  3,304 

Lewis      32,176  Pinckney  23,378  Dougherty      270 

2  Communicated  to  the  writer  by  S.  D.  Hastings  in  1895. 


282       WHIGS  AND  FREE  DEMOCRATS  IN  WISCONSIN. 

evil  as  the  Free  Soil  party."  1  The  Whigs  in  their  State  Con- 
vention repudiated  the  national  platform  by  resolving  against 
the  extension  of  slavery  and  by  denying  the  authority  of  any 
convention  to  decree  the  finality  of  any  law.2  Even  the  Janes- 
ville  Gazette,  the  only  strong  Whig  opponent  of  fusion,  ad- 
mitted :  "  To  a  great  extent  the  principles  of  the  Free  Soil  and 
Whig  parties  are  identical."  3 

In  the  autumn  the  Whig  papers  spoke  still  more  plainly. 
The  State  Journal,  in  speaking  of  the  Whig  party,  said:  "There 
are  higher  motives  than  mere  political  aggrandizement.  .  .  . 
We  have  no  blind  allegiance  to  that  party  as  a  party."  4  The 
Milwaukee  Sentinel  went  still  farther:  "  It  is  certainly  true,  that 
the  Whigs  and  the  Free  Soilers  .  .  .  think  alike  .  .  .  and  it 
is  highly  desirable  that  they  should  act  together.  .  .  .  Parties 
have  indeed  lost  much  of  their  prescriptive  authority  in  this 
state."  5  After  the  election  the  Free  Democratic  Kenosha  Tele- 
graph remarked :  "  The  mission  of  the  Free  Democracy  as  an 
independent  party  is  nearly  fulfilled."  It  described  how  the 
slave  power  was  aiming  to  control  the  country,  and  concluded : 
"  When  the  people  come  to  see  this  fact  clearly  a  third  party 
has  no  mission.  This  is  the  condition  to  which  people  are  now 
rapidly  turning."  6  The  language  of  the  State  Journal,  in  com- 
menting on  the  foregoing  paragraphs,  indicates  strikingly  the 
difference  between  Michigan  Whigs  of  1849  and  Wisconsin 
Whigs  of  1853.  "  Such,"  it  said,  "  is  the  language  of  the  Tele- 
graph, one  of  the  ablest  of  the  organs  of  the  Free  Soil  party  in 
the  State.  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are  numerous  indica- 
tions in  the  present  condition  of  parties  pointing  to  such  a  state 
of  things  in  the  future.  The  ostensible  issues  have  become  mat- 
ters of  fancy.  .  .  .  That  this  state  of  things  cannot  last  long  is 
tolerably  certain.  A  great  majority  of  the  people  are  opposed 
to  the  extension  of  slavery ;  the  humbug  of  '  saving  the  Union' 
is  beginning  to  be  appreciated  in  all  quarters.  If  slavery 

1  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  May  30,  1853. 

2  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Sept.  19,  1853. 

3  Oct.  15,  1853.  4  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  Oct.  20,  1853. 
8  Sept.  28,  1853. 

6  Quoted  in  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  Nov.  29,  1853. 


WHIGS  READY  FOR  A    CHANGE.  283 

can  be   restricted  within   its  present  limits    it  must  inevitably 
decline."  l 

The  year  1853,  then,  saw  the  Free  Democrats  of  the  North- 
west at  the  height  of  their  activity.  In  every  State  their  or- 
ganization was  improving,  and  in  three  States,  —  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Wisconsin,  —  their  vote  had  largely  increased.  Throughout 
the  Northwest,  Whigs  were  beginning  to  regard  the  Free  Demo- 
cratic party  with  more  interest  and  toleration,  and  even  when 
not  outright  in  favor  of  coalition  they  seemed  inclined  to  empha- 
size their  anti-slavery  position  and  to  repudiate  the  national 
Whig  platform.  In  the  other  States  it  would  be  easy  to  find 
many  sentiments  similar  to  those  quoted  in  Ohio  and  Wisconsin. 
The  Indiana  State  Journal,  though  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
sympathizing  with  the  Free  Soil  organization,  said  in  comment- 
ing on  the  State  Convention :  "  We  claim  to  be  as  heartily  op- 
posed to  slavery  as  any  man  who  may  participate  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  meeting  on  Thursday."  2  Later  the  Jour- 
nal, being  charged  with  "  abolitionism,"  defined  its  position, 
calling  "  Union  saving  "  a  hobby.  It  considered  the  position 
of  the  South  with  regard  to  slavery  in  the  Territories  as  "  one 
which  will  eventually  destroy  the  Union  if  it  ever  is  destroyed," 
adding  :  "  As  to  the  future,  should  any  question  arise  involving 
the  extension  of  slavery  over  territory  now  free,  we  shall  be 
found  in  the  opposition  to  the  utmost  of  our  feeble  efforts.  If 
these  views  are  '  abolitionism '  they  can  make  the  most  of  it."  3 

In  Illinois  another  Old  Line  W7hig  paper  used  similar  lan- 
guage. "We  have  become  heartily  tired,"  said  the  Chicago 
Journal,  "  of  this  eternal  clamor  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 
When  the  area  [of  slavery]  is  sought  to  be  extended  over  free- 
dom's broad  and  happy  domain  .  .  .  then  its  defenders  will  ever 
find  in  us  a  willing  hand  to  strike  a  blow  for  the  down-trodden  and 
oppressed."4  When  \he  Journal  was  charged,  like  its  Indiana- 
polis namesake,  with  being  abolitionist,  it  replied :  "  Is  it  abo- 
litionism to  sympathize  with  the  oppressed?  So  far  then  we 

1  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  Nov.  29,  1853. 

2  Indiana  State  Journal,  May  24,  1853. 
8  Ibid.,  Aug.  21,  1853. 

4  Chicago  Journal,  Jan.  4,  1853. 


284      WHIGS  AND  FREE  DEMOCRATS  IN  WISCONSIN. 

plead  guilty  to  the  charge  of  being  abolitionist.  We  do  not  by 
word  or  thought  seek  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  states,  .  .  . 
but  when  its  blighting  influence  is  spread  in  the  heretofore  glori- 
ous state  of  our  adoption  we  cannot  be  silenced."  l  This  last 
phrase  refers  to  a  law  enacted  in  this  year  forbidding  negroes  to 
come  into  the  State  under  penalty  of  imprisonment,  fine,  or,  in 
default  of  payment,  of  sale  at  auction  for  a  term  of  years.2  This 
law,  which  practically  enacted  slavery,  met  with  condemnation 
by  Whig  and  Democratic  papers  alike  in  the  northern  counties. 
The  Journal  called  it  "  a  dishonor  to  our  State,  a  deep  wrong  to 
our  nation,  a  foul  stain  upon  the  character  and  intelligence  of 
our  people,"3 — language  with  which  the  Western  Citizen,  the 
Journals  anti-slavery  neighbor,  could  find  no  fault. 

The  signs  of  dissolution,  not  rapid  or  willing,  but  still  inevi- 
table, had  appeared  in  the  Whig  ranks.  What  profit  the  cause 
of  anti-slavery  should  derive  from  this  crisis  depended  upon  the 
events  of  1854;  and  in  full  realization  of  their  opportunity  the 
Free  Democrats  were,  at  the  opening  of  that  year,  prepared  in 
every  Northwestern  State  for  a  prodigious  effort.  That  effort 
was  never  expended,  or  rather  it  received  a  direction  never  an- 
ticipated in  the  wildest  dreams  of  third-party  men;  for  in  1854 
came  the  Kansas-Nebraska  excitement,  and  with  it  anti-slavery 
action  in  the  United  States  entered  upon  a  new,  a  more  serious, 
and  an  eventually  triumphant  career. 

1  March  n,  1853. 

2  See  Appendix  D,  p.  332. 

8  Chicago  Journal,  Feb.  22, 1853. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

THE    FREE    DEMOCRATIC    PARTY    ATTAINS    NIRVANA   IN 
THE    ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

1854. 

ONE  may  be  permitted  to  surmise  what  would  have  been  the 
fate  of  the  Free  Democratic  party  in  the  Northwest  had  the 
situation  in  regard  to  slavery  been  allowed  to  remain  as  it  was 
at  the  end  of  the  campaigns  of  1853.  The  Whig  party  was 
slipping  away  from  its  platform  of  1852,  and  disintegration 
was  so  inevitable  in  the  immediate  future  that  many  Free 
Democrats  hoped  that  their  own  party  might  step  into  its  place. 
The  great  gains  just  made  in  Ohio  and  Wisconsin  seemed  to 
point  in  that  direction,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  encouraged  the 
Ohio  Central  Committee  to  make  bold  prophecies;  but  so  rose- 
colored  a  view  has  no  justification  when  we  consider  the  position 
of  the  third  party  outside  of  Ohio  and  Wisconsin.  In  no  one  of 
the  other  Northwestern  States  did  it,  in  1853,  seriously  threaten 
the  Whigs ;  in  fact,  so  far  as  numbers  went,  it  was  scarcely  more 
important  than  the  Liberty  party  had  been. 

The  Whigs  were,  to  be  sure,  ready  for  anti-slavery  action,  and 
their  party  name  was  beginning  to  lose  its  magic;  but  it  is 
hardly  conceivable  that  in  the  Northwest  they  would  have 
entered  en  masse  into  the  Free  Democratic  ranks,  as  the  National 
Era  hoped.  In  spite  of  the  close  approximation  in  principle 
between  Northwestern  Whigs  and  Free  Democrats,  union  must 
come  not  through  direct  absorption,  but  rather  through  the 
medium  of  some  new  organization.  The  truth  is,  that  after 
1850  the  Free  Democracy  was  somewhat  too  familiar  and  com- 
monplace to  be  attractive  to  anti-slavery  Whigs  or  Democrats, 
however  anxious  for  a  change  they  might  be.  Its  doctrines, 


286  ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

though  true,  were  trite ;  its  leaders  had  said  their  say ;  and  the 
odor  of  bargaining  and  coalition  still  hanging  over  from  1849 
discredited  it  widely.  The  Free  Soil  party  had  "  shot  its  bolt," 
and  in  the  nature  of  things  was  less  interesting  than  would  be  a 
fresh  organization  with  the  same  principles,  but  under  a  new 
name. 

That  this  was  the  case  none  knew  better  than  the  leading 
Free  Democrats.  In  1853  a  wide  correspondence,  started  by 
Mr.  William  Medill,  of  the  Cleveland  Forest  City,  between  lead- 
ing Whig  politicians  and  editors  and  Free  Democrats,  brought 
out  the  fact  that  the  latter  were  ready  and  eager  to  sink  their 
organization  in  a  new  one,  if  only  the  substitute  would  take 
a  right  attitude  on  slavery  extension;  the  Whigs,  on  their 
side,  though  more  cautious,  evidently  were  gravitating  in  the 
same  direction.1  What  was  now  needed  was  a  centre  of  irri- 
tation around  which  a  new  party  could  be  crystallized ;  and  in 
default  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  something  else  would  have  served. 
The  whole  narrative  up  to  this  point  proves  that,  whatever  might 
come  up  in  Congress,  the  course  of  party  history  in  1854  could 
not  have  been  very  different  from  what  it  actually  turned  out. 
From  the  existing  chaos  of  parties  a  new  anti-slavery  party 
sooner  or  later  must  have  taken  form.  Already  in  1852-53  the 
Maine  Law  agitation  had  been  sweeping  the  country ;  and  when 
in  1854  the  signal  for  dissolution  came  in  the  form  of  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska Bill,  all  party  lines  seemed  to  vanish  in  a  wilder- 
ness of  faction.  In  the  elections  of  1853-54,  tickets  were 
actually  put  into  the  field  by  the  Democrats  ("  Hard "  and 
"  Soft  "),  Temperance  Democrats,  Maine  Law  men,  Whigs, 
Know-Nothings,  Free  Democrats,  Anti-Nebraska  men,  and  Re- 
publicans. 

In  1854  in  the  Eastern  States  the  Know-Nothing  movement 
carried  nearly  all  before  it.  In  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  the 
Whigs,  profiting  by  Democratic  faction  and  by  the  absence  of 
any  strong  third  party,  maintained  their  organization  ;  but  in 
the  Northwest  the  event  toward  which,  for  long  weary  years, 
abolitionists,  Liberty  men,  and  Free  Democrats  had  been  work- 
ing, took  place  in  the  creation  of  a  new  Northern  anti-slavery 
1  See  letter  in  Chicago  Tribune,  April  25,  1895. 


A   NEW  PARTY  INEVITABLE.  287 

party.  One  obvious  reason  for  such  radical  action  by  North- 
western Whigs  was  that  their  party  had  been  for  years  losing 
ground,  and  by  1854  was  in  so  hopeless  a  minority  that  the 
party  name  retained  few  attractions;  but  another  reason  was  to'  / 
be  found  in  the  greater  looseness  of  party  ties  in  the  Northwest. 
The  Northwestern  Whigs  and  anti-slavery  Democrats,  not  a 
whit  more  earnest  in  their  convictions  than  their  brethren  in 
the  Central  and  Eastern  States,  showed  greater  magnanimity 
and  much  less  partisanship  throughout  the  year;  they  worked 
side  by  side  with  each  other,  and  with  hated  "  abolitionists  "  at 
a  time  when  Eastern  Whigs  and  Democrats  were  clinging  to 
their  old  organizations,  or  were  rushing  into  the  secrecy  and 
the  futility  of  the  Know-Nothing  movement. 

Of  the  general  aspects  of  the  Anti-Nebraska  movement,  from 
the  first  mutterings  of  alarm  in  January  to  the  wild  outburst 
in  June  and  the  triumphant  campaign  in  the  summer,  this 
is  not  the  place  to  speak ;  but  we  cannot  dismiss  the  third-party 
movement  without  tracing  among  the  confusion  of  the  popular 
uprising  the  course  of  the  Free  Democratic  party  in  the  several 
States. 

The  only  national  Free  Democratic  action  in  this  year  was  the 
issuing  of  the  "  Address  of  the  Independent  Democrats  in  Con- 
gress," written  by  Chase,  and  signed  by  him,  and  by  Edward 
Wade  and  Giddings  of  Ohio,  Sumner  and  DeWitt  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  Gerrit  Smith  of  New  York.  This  last  public  utter- 
ance of  the  party  was  a  powerful  one,  a  clarion  cry  producing 
a  great  effect  in  all  quarters  and  marking  the  real  beginning  of 
the  Republican  movement. 

In  Ohio,  when  public  meetings  began  to  protest  against  the 
Nebraska  Bill,  the  Free  Democrats  from  the  outset  co-operated 
with  other  protestors.  Without  claiming  anything  for  party 
advantage,  without  even  referring  to  the  past,  Root,  Vaughn, 
Spaulding,  Brinckerhoff,  and  the  rest  with  rare  tact  fell  in  with 
the  current  of  popular  feeling,  striving  only  to  aid  without 
seeming  to  try  to  lead.  From  the  beginning,  Whigs  of  all 
stripes  were,  on  their  part,  inclined  to  co-operate.  On  the  West- 
ern Reserve,  party  lines  vanished.  The  fusion  of  the  Cleveland 
True  Democrat  and  Forest  City  was  followed  by  the  union  of 


288  ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

the  Elyria  Courier  and  Independent  Democrat,  and  by  that  of 
the  Ravenna  Star  and  Whig.1  Still  more  significant  was  the 
attitude  of  the  Columbus  State  Journal,  the  central  organ  of 
the  "  Silver  Gray"  Whigs.  This  paper  feared  at  first  that  the 
question  "  would  be  complicated  by  the  over-zealous  action  of 
the  extreme  anti-slavery  partisans  in  the  free  States " ;  but, 
when  the  address  of  the  independent  Democrats  appeared, 
approved  it  as  "  fair  and  reasonably  moderate." a  The  Cleve- 
land Herald,  equally  conservative,  could  not  even  in  this  hour 
forgive  Chase.  "  We  are  no  political  friends  of  Mr.  Chase,"  it 
said ;  "  he  obtained  his  seat  in  a  manner  entirely  subversive  of 
political  integrity;  we  hope  never  again  to  fall  upon  such 
political  times  as  disgraced  Ohio  under  the  reign  of  the  bal- 
ance of  power."  When,  however,  Chase's  speech  on  the  bill 
was  reported,  it  could  not  deny  that  "  looking  merely  at  this 
one  question  we  know  that  the  Senator  speaks  the  voice  of 
Ohio."  3 

During  the  winter  and  spring,  even  before  the  old  party  lead- 
ers were  quite  ready  to  talk  about  a  new  organization,  local 
bodies  began  to  fuse  together.  In  many  places  the  Central 
Committees  of  all  three  parties  united  to  call  anti-Nebraska 
conventions.  A  committee  of  three  men  was  appointed  by  a 
mass  meeting  at  Columbus  to  issue  a  call  and  collect  signatures 
for  a  State  anti-Nebraska  Convention,  the  Free  Soil  represen- 
tative being  Dr.  J.  H.  Coulter,  formerly  on  the  Free  Democratic 
State  Committee.  By  the  middle  of  the  spring  grudging  ap- 
proval gave  place  to  the  loud  demands  for  a  new  party.  The 
Columbus  State  Journal,  Cleveland  Herald,  Cincinnati  Gazette, 
dozens  of  other  Whig  papers,  and  many  Democratic  journals, 
joined  in  calling  for  a  non-partisan  union  of  "  all  who  hate  or 
dislike  slavery,  against  its  encroachments."  The  name  "  Repub- 
lican "  had  already  been  suggested  by  the  private  correspond- 
ence of  Greeley,  A.  E.  Bovay,  of  Ripon,  Wisconsin,  and  others, 
besides  Whig  and  Free  Democratic  editors.  By  June  it  began 
to  be  heard  in  public.  "  Let  us  unite  on  a  common  principle," 

1  Daily  Forest  City  Democrat,  Jan.  27,  April  i,  1854. 

2  Ohio  State  Journal,  Jan.  14,  26,  1854. 
8  Cleveland  Herald,  March  7,  1854. 


ANTI-NEBRASKA    COALITION  IN  OHIO.  289 

said  the  State  Journal ;  "we  shall  soon  find  a  common  name  in 
the  pure  Republicanism  of  our  object."1 

As  the  day  for  the  assembling  of  the  State  Convention  drew 
near,  the  Free  Democrats  were  afraid  that  the  meeting  might 
be  led  to  take  a  timid  attitude  through  fear  of  losing  Demo- 
cratic support.  "We  are  grieved,"  said  the  Cleveland  Leader 
(formerly  True  Democrat),  "to  see  the  effort  making  in  some 
quarters  to  whittle  down  the  anti-slavery  platform  of  Ohio  to 
the  single  issue  of  the  repeal  of  the  Nebraska  Bill."  It  stated 
that  the  aim  of  Northern  efforts  should  be  to  denationalize 
slavery,  and  added:  "  In  this  state  there  are  35,000  Free  Soil- 
ers  and  25,000  German  radicals  who  will  surrender  their  organ- 
ization to  no  party  whose  principles  contemplate  less  than  the 
foregoing." 2  The  convention,  however,  though  not  so  radical 
in  its  utterances  as  many  desired,  satisfied  the  Free  Demo- 
crats by  adopting  resolutions  pledging  its  members  to  resist  the 
spread  of  slavery,  and  demanding  the  repeal  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act.  "True,"  the  Leader  said,  "  the  resolutions  were 
not  up  to  the  spirit  of  the  Convention,  but  the  members  of  the 
Convention  know,  as  the  people  of  Ohio  know,  that  the  set  of 
the  current  is  right  .  .  .  We  have  learned  to  labor  and  to 
wait." 3  The  Ohio  State  Journal  clinched  matters  as  follows : 
"Whatever  errors  in  policy  our  Free  Soil  friends  may  have 
committed  (and  we  believe  they  are  many),  it  is  clear  that  on 
the  issue  now  tendered  by  the  South  they  are  right;  and  being 
right,  shall  Whigs  and  Democrats  refuse  their  association? 
We  certainly  cannot.  .  .  .  Men  must  stand  aside,  prejudices 
should  be  forgotten."4 

But  from  the  group  of  Ohio  anti-slavery  leaders  who  now, 
with  the  stern  joy  of  men  who  see  the  promised  land,  were 
fighting  in  the  thick  of  the  anti-Nebraska  struggle,  one  elo- 
quent voice  was  missing.  On  July  29  died  Sam  Lewis,  the 
man  most  beloved  by  Ohio  abolitionists,  not  even  excepting 
Giddings.  He  was  prematurely  worn  out  by  his  superhuman 
exertions  in  1852-53.  Throughout  his  career  he  had  com- 

1  Ohio  State  Journal,  June  5,  1854. 

2  Cleveland  Leader,  July  6,  1854. 

8  Ibid,,  July  17,  1854.  4  July  17,  1854. 

19 


2QO  ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

bined  the  rare  qualities  of  a  good-tempered  radical,  a  practical 
philanthropist,  an  unselfish  politician,  and  a  popular  leader  of 
an  unpopular  cause.1 

With  the  State  Convention  of  July  the  separate  existence  of 
the  Free  Democratic  party  in  Ohio  ceased,  except  in  a  few 
localities.  By  a  curious  coincidence,  Geauga  County,  which 
in  1839  had  run  a  separate  anti-slavery  ticket,  nominated  a 
Free  Democratic  ticket  in  1854.  The  first  to  enter  the  field, 
the  Geauga  third-party  men  were  the  last  to  leave  it. 

In  Indiana,  in  1854,  the  Free  Democrats,  in  sharp  contrast 
to  their  Ohio  brethren,  played  comparatively  little  part  in  the 
Republican  movement.  Their  State  Convention  on  May  29 
showed  a  conciliatory  spirit,  and,  with  the  advice  of  all  its 
leading  men,  resolved,  after  condemning  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill,  "That  we  have  no  idolatrous  attachment  for  mere  party 
names,  but  seek  the  triumph  of  principles,  and  we  recommend 
in  the  present  crisis  a  co-operation  of  all  persons  who  are  op- 
posed to  said  measure  with  a  view  to  its  repeal.  Therefore 
we  recommend  the  calling  of  a  State  Convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  combining  all  elements  of  opposition  to  said  measure."2 
To  signalize  its  non-partisan  feeling,  the  convention  also  re- 
solved to  nominate  no  candidates ;  but,  although  Indiana  Whigs 
and  many  Democrats  were  genuinely  anxious  for  a  new  party, 
the  popular  prejudice  against  "abolitionism"  was  so  great  that 
they  dared  not  show  much  consideration  for  the  Free  Demo- 
cratic leaders.  The  most  they  would  concede  was  that  S.  S. 
Harding  might  speak  at  anti-Nebraska  meetings.  At  the  Indi- 
ana State  anti-Nebraska  Convention,  held  on  the  same  day  as 
that  of  Ohio,  resolutions  were  offered  favoring  slavery  restric- 
tion and  the  repeal  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  Unlike  the 
Ohio  Free  Democrats,  Julian  did  not  acquiesce,  and  brought 
in  a  minority  report  demanding  the  denationalization  of  slavery. 
Although  the  temper  of  the  convention  was  probably  such 
that  his  resolutions  might  have  been  adopted,  the  leaders  here, 
as  in  Ohio,  preferred  a  more  cautious  course,  in  the  hope  of 


1  W.  G.  W.  Lewis,  Biography  of  Samuel  Lewis,  Cincinnati,  1857. 

2  National  Era,  June  15,  1854;  Ohio  Columbian^  Aug.  9,  1854. 


^^ 

UNION  IN  INDIANA.  291 

drawing  the  Democratic  vote;  and  the  majority  report  was 
declared  adopted.1 

Notwithstanding  this  timid  beginning,  the  Anti-Nebraska 
triumph  in  the  following  campaign  was  almost  as  glorious  as  in 
Ohio :  and  the  Free  Democrats  played  their  part  in  advocating 
the  success  of  the  anti-Nebraska  ticket ;  nevertheless,  as  a  writer 
in  the  National, Era  said,  the  movement  in  Indiana  was  far  from 
radical.  "  The  leaders,"  he  wrote,  "  are  not  anti-slavery  men, 
but  some  of  them  even  pro-slavery  Democrats,  who  merely  re- 
gret that  equilibrium  has  been  disturbed.  They  recoil  from  the 
charge  of  abolitionism  and  do  their  best  to  keep  Free  Soil  men 
in  the  background.  .  .  .  The  danger  is  that  the  anti-Nebraska 
movement  will  fritter  out,  leaving  the  anti-slavery  cause  just 
where  it  was  in  1852."  2  The  despondency  of  the  Indiana  Free 
Democrats  was  not  justified  by  events;  for,  although  Indiana 
proved  a  backward  State,  and  although  the  Republican  party 
formed  in  this  year  was  never,  except  in  the  first  election,  the 
strong,  courageous  organization  of  Ohio,  it  continued  to  oppose 
slavery  extension.  More  radical  doctrine  could  scarcely  have 
been  expected  of  a  State  with  so  large  a  Southern  element  in 
its  population. 

The  Michigan  Free  Democracy  had  an  interesting  experience 
in  1854.  The  Whigs  of  that  State,  after  thirteen  years  of  defeat, 
had  become  thoroughly  ready  for  a  change.  In  the  early 
months  of  1854,  as  soon  as  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  was  intro- 
duced into  Congress,  leading  Whigs  participated  in  the  non- 
partisan  meetings  held  to  protest.  The  spring  found  them 
heartily  in  favor  of  a  new  party;  and  when  Congress  finally 
passed  the  bill,  the  Detroit  Tribune  said  in  its  indignation  :  "  The 
man  of  whatever  party  who  refuses  to  sacrifice  every  personal 
and  party  consideration  ...  in  order  to  aid  in  concentrating 
public  sentiment  against  this  great  outrage  .  .  .  will  deserve  to 
be  damned  to  everlasting  infamy " ;  3  and  Jacob  M.  Howard, 
hitherto  strictest  Whig  of  the  strict,  said  in  a  speech :  "  There 
must  be  union  among  men  who  are  opposed  to  this  surrender  of 

1  Indiana   State  Journal,  July  18,  24,  1854. 

a  National  Era,  Oct.  5,  1854. 

8  Quoted  in  Racine  Advocate,  June  5,  1854. 


2Q2  ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

every  principle.     That  union  must  be  lasting.     There  is  no  use 
standing  on  punctilios  any  longer."  1 

The  Free  Democrats  held  their  State  Convention  on  February 
22,  at  a  time  when  it  was  still  by  no  means  certain  that  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska Bill  would  pass.  Obviously,  whatever  might  be  the 
result,  an  opportunity  offered  itself  for  the  Free  Democracy  by 
a  judicious  campaign  to  profit  largely  from  the  anti-slavery  ex- 
citement. With  this  object  in  view,  the  three  hundred  and 
nineteen  delegates  present  made  provision  for  vigorous  local 
organization,  passed  resolutions  favoring  "  prohibition  "  and  con- 
demning the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  and  nominated  a  State  ticket 
headed  by  K.  S.  Bingham  and  containing  four  other  Free 
Soilers,  one  Democrat,  and  three  Whigs.2  The  purpose  of  this 
step  was  evidently  to  draw  voters  from  the  other  two  parties ;  but 
the  action,  although  commended  at  the  convention  by  H.  H. 
Emmons,  a  Whig  leader,  grated  on  the  majority  of  his  party 
fellows.  The  ticket  was  approved  by  several  party  news- 
papers on  each  side 3 ;  but  the  Battle  Creek  Journal  said : 
"  However  much  we  may  sympathize  with  the  principles  put 
forth  by  the  Free  Soilers  we  cannot  but  condemn  this  haste  — 
this  disposition  to  forestall  other  parties.  How  can  they  expect 
Whigs  and  Democrats  will  dissolve  their  political  connections 
to  aid  in  electing  Free  Soil  partisans?"4  There  was  much 
force  in  this  complaint ;  but  the  Free  Democrats  continued  with 
great  vigor  to  perfect  their  organization.  Eaton,  Clinton,  St. 
Joseph,  Kalamazoo,  Oakland,  and  Kent  counties  formed  local 
associations,  and  local  tickets  were  run  in  scores  of  places.  In 
the  town  elections  Whigs  and  Free  Democrats  prospered ;  but 
from  every  side  came  in  reports  of  Free  Democratic  success. 
"  In  Burr  Oak,"  said  one  correspondent,  "  where  eleven  years 
ago  there  were  only  three  poor  despised  abolitionists,  every 
township  officer  but  one  was  elected."  5  In  a  few  places  in 

1  Detroit  Democrat,  June  8,  1854.  *  Ibid.,  Feb.  23,  1854. 

8  The  Grand  River  Eagle  said  that  it  was  willing  to  support  Bingham; 
and  the  Branch  Coimty  Journal,  J one sville  Telegraph,  and  Monroe  Commer- 
cial—  the  two  last-named,  Democratic  papers  —  commended  the  ticket. 

4  Quoted  Detroit  Democrat,  March  4,  1854. 

6  Ibid.)  May  13,  1854. 


REPUBLICAN  PARTY  IN  MICHIGAN.  293 

which  non-partisan  anti-Nebraska  tickets  were  run,  the  same  or 
even  greater  success  was  attained.1 

By  May  the  desire  for  an  entirely  new  party  was  growing  so 
obvious  that  the  Free  Democratic  leaders  found  themselves  in 
an  awkward  position,  and  I.  P.  Christiancy  at  once  set  to  work 
to  get  their  candidates  to  withdraw;  but  they  showed  a  natural 
reluctance.  They  seemed  at  last  to  have  the  chance  of  building 
up  their  party  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  Whigs  and  Democrats,  and 
for  them  to  resign  both  personal  advantage  and  prospective 
party  gain  called  for  much  real  self-surrender.2  While  the 
outcome  hung  in  the  balance,  on  May  25  the  Independent  Demo- 
cratic Central  Committee  issued  a  call  for  a  State  Mass  Conven- 
tion at  Kalamazoo  to  oppose  the  slave  power,  with  the  idea, 
apparently,  of  using  the  anti-Nebraska  excitement  for  their  own 
advantage.  This  was  a  false  move ;  for  the  Whigs,  who  wanted 
to  have  a  hand  in  any  party-building,  took  offence.  The  De- 
troit Democrat  worked  hard  for  harmony,  saying:  "We  feel 
confident  that  an  honorable  and  satisfactory  union  can  be  effected 
in  our  State,"  3  and  at  length  the  Kalamazoo  Convention,  though 
composed  principally  of  Free  Soilers,  showed  a  conciliatory 
spirit.  "  While  asserting  the  true  principles  of  anti-slavery  action, 
it  generously  pledged  the  party  to  surrender  its  name  and  its 
candidates,  provided  the  people  without  distinction  of  party 
would  take  the  right  ground  and  organize  for  efficient  opera- 
tions."4 A  committee  was  appointed,  with  Christiancy  at  the 
head,  to  withdraw  the  candidates  in  case  such  a  step  proved  ad- 
visable. This  action  met  at  once  with  Whig  approval,  especially 
among  the  country  editors,  who  were  anxious  for  a  union,  and 
who  now  said,  in  the  words  of  the  Cass  County  Tribune:  "  This 
is  magnanimous  and  right."5 

On  June  23  a  call  for  a  State  Convention  appeared,  signed  by 
men  of  all  parties ;  and  on  July  6,  at  Jackson,  the  "  People  " 
met  and  organized  a  new  party,  the  "  Republican."  Strange 

1  Grand  River  Eagle,  Dec.  13,  1890. 

2  Letter  of  I.  P.  Christiancy,  in  F.  A.  Flower,  History  of  the  Republican 
Party •,  172. 

8  June  14,  1854.  4  National  Era,  July  6,  1854. 

6  Quoted  in  Detroit  Democrat,  July  i,  1854. 


294  ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

sights  were  seen  in  this  Convention,  men  who  had  been  promi- 
nent in  circulating  the  Birney  forgery  serving  on  committees 
side  by  side  with  original  Liberty  abolitionists.  The  Com- 
mittee on  Resolutions  reported  through  Jacob  M.  Howard 
a  ringing  series  embodying,  in  great  contrast  to  the  meagre 
platforms  of  Indiana  and  Ohio,  all  the  anti-slavery  doctrine  that 
the  most  ardent  Free  Democrat  could  desire;  then  came  the 
most  dramatic  episode  of  the  day,  when  I.  P.  Christiancy, 
stepping  forward,  announced  the  withdrawal  of  the  Free  Demo- 
cratic ticket  and  the  dissolution  of  the  Free  Democratic  party. 
Loud  and  prolonged  applause  followed.  The  Free  Democratic 
party  of  Michigan  thus  gracefully  and  definitely  withdrew  from 
the  field  and  turned  into  the  service  of  the  Republican  move- 
ment that  activity  which  had  been  so  effective  in  1852-53. 

The  Illinois  Free  Democrats  shared  to  some  extent  the  fate 
of  their  Indiana  brethren.  In  spite  of  the  popular  revolt  against 
Douglas  and  his  bill,  the  local  Whig  party  with  amazing  con- 
servatism refused  to  abandon  its  name  and  organization.  There 
was,  however,  a  general  union  of  anti-Nebraska  sentiment,  and 
in  the  two  northern  districts  the  Republican  party  was  success- 
fully formed.  As  in  1848,  the  principal  interest  lay  in  the  revolt 
of  the  Chicago  Democrats,  which  in  its  violence  led  to  an  actual 
mobbing  of  the  author  of  the  obnoxious  Nebraska  Bill  when, 
in  September,  he  visited  the  city.  A  tendency  toward  anti- 
Nebraska  fusion  began  to  appear  in  the  increasing  numbers 
of  non-partisan  meetings.  Said  the  Chicago  Tribune  in  May : 
"The  signs  of  the  times  seem  to  us  to  indicate  an  affiliation  of 
those  better  and  more  progressive  elements  without  regard  to 
party  as  it  now  exists."  l  When  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  passed, 
the  Chicago  Courant  (Democratic)  declared:  "The  political 
landmarks  can  no  longer  be  Whig  or  Democrat,  Free  Soil  or 
Abolitionist,  but  must  be  merged  into  the  two  great  parties, 
South  and  North;"2  and  on  August  2  a  non-partisan  conven- 
tion for  Lake  County,  the  focus  of  anti-slavery  sentiment, 
adopted  the  "  Republican "  platform  and  name,  and  went  to 
work.  In  the  Second  Congressional  District  a  fusion  conven- 

1  Quoted  in  Racine  Advocate,  May  22,  1854. 

2  Quoted  ibid.,  June  5,  1854. 


PARTIAL   COALITION  IN  ILLINOIS.  295 

tion  met,  and  after  uncompromising  speeches  in  favor  of  a  new 
party,  —  one  of  them  by  ex-Governor  Bebb  of  Ohio,  —  adopted 
the  Republican  platform  of  Wisconsin,  and  with  great  enthu- 
siasm nominated  E.  B.  Washburne.1  In  the  Chicago  district  a 
"  People's  "  convention  nominated  a  Republican  candidate,  but 
the  Whigs  refused  to  coalesce  and  ran  a  separate  ticket. 

While  in  these  movements  the  Free  Democrats  were  ready 
cheerfully  to  merge  their  identity,  the  initiative  for  a  State  anti- 
Nebraska  organization  came  from  certain  of  their  number  who 
issued  a  call  for  a  convention  at  Springfield  on  October  5. 
Abraham  Lincoln,  an  old  Whig,  was  just  then  beginning  his 
anti-slavery  career,  and  efforts  were  made  to  engage  him  in  the 
movement;  but  his  friends  dissuaded  him  from  appearing  at 
the  convention.2  The  meeting  was  disapproved  by  the  leading 
Whig  papers,  and  therefore  turned  out  a  Free  Democratic  affair, 
led  by  Codding  and  Lovejoy.  To  show  its  conciliatory  spirit,  it 
nominated  for  State  treasurer  E.  McClure,  "  a  Henry  Clay 
Whig,"  as  the  Chicago  Journal  called  him.3  The  Whig  Central 
Committee  ratified  this  nomination ;  but  as  McClure  had  de- 
clined the  Republican  nomination,  difficulties  resulted,  which, 
after  some  correspondence,  were  straightened  out  by  the  co- 
operation of  the  Republican  and  Whig  committees  in  the  selec- 
tion of  Miller.  In  this  campaign,  therefore,  the  Illinois  Free 
Democrats  lost  their  identity  as  a  party.  The  anti-Nebraska 
sentiment  of  the  State,  in  spite  of  Whig  reluctance,  was  soon  to 
solidify  into  a  Republican  party  of  the  Indiana  type. 

In  Wisconsin,  as  in  Ohio,  the  tale  of  Free  Democratic  action 
in  1854  is  soon  told.  The  "People's"  movement  of  1853  has 
already  been  described ;  it  resulted  in  the  temporary  coalition 
of  Whigs  and  Free  Democrats ;  but  for  all  practical  purposes 
the  two  parties  ceased  their  separate  existence  in  October,  1853. 
Thereafter  the  old  party  machinery  was  lifeless.  Here  and  there 
in  the  state,  local  organizations  ran  separate  tickets  in  the  spring 
elections  of  1854,  but  even  in  such  cases  fusion  was  common. 
On  the  question  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  Wisconsin  seemed 

1  National  Era,  Sept.  14,  1854;  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  Sept.  4,  1854. 

2  J.  T.  Morse,  Abraham  Lincoln,  I.,  95. 
*  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  7-10,  1854. 


296  ANTI-NEBRASKA   MOVEMENT. 

to  move  as  one  man.  Early  in  February  began  frequent  non- 
partisan  meetings,  in  which  the  foremost  Free  Democrats  and 
Whigs  participated.  Probably  the  earliest  of  these  meetings 
I  \  in  the  whole  country  expressly  to  propose  a  new  party  was 
that  called  at  Ripon,  Winnebago  County;  it  has  become  famous 
as  the  starting-point  of  the  Republican  party.1 

When  the  Nebraska  Bill  passed,  in  May,  1854,  the  organs  of 
both  parties  with  few  exceptions,  together  with  a  good  many 
individual  Democrats,  heartily  joined  in  the  call  for  a  State 
Mass  Convention.  Whig  papers,  in  marked  contrast  to  their 
Illinois  neighbors,  spoke  kindly  of  the  Free  Democrats.  "  We 
wish  to  leave  off  platforms,"  said  the  Grant  County  Herald,  "  and 
turn  to  men.  Anybody  can  ride  on  a  platform.  Measures  not 
men  elected  Pierce,  nominated  Scott,  and  both  on  identical 
platforms.  Does  any  sane  man  believe  that  J.  P.  Hale  had  not 
merit  enough  of  his  own  to  shine?  He  was  the  only  statesman 
of  the  lot.  We  oppose  unions  or  compacts  between  parties 
merely  for  the  sake  of  gaining  a  majority  over  a  third  party."  2 
Said  the  Madison  Journal:  "The  Whig  and  Free  Soil  parties 
stand  this  day,  though  in  the  minority,  in  a  position  infinitely 
more  proud  than  the  dishonored  pro-slavery  Democratic  party."  3 
The  Free  Democrats,  on  their  part,  abandoned  their  organiza- 
tion without  a  moment's  hesitation,  and  in  the  convention  at 
Madison,  on  July  13,  all  anti-slavery  elements,  with  enthusiasm 
and  harmony  unsurpassed  elsewhere,  adopted  the  Republican 
platform  and  name.  So  thoroughly  had  the  fusion  of  1853  paved 
the  way  for  a  new  party  that  in  1854  there  was  hardly  the  slight- 
est friction  in  passing  from  the  old  to  the  new  dispensation. 

In  Iowa,  as  in  Michigan,  the  gallant  little  band  of  anti-slavery 
heroes  made  a  self-denying  ordinance,  when  they  saw  that  the 
time  had  come  to  unite  the  opponents  of  the  Nebraska  Bill. 
The  Whigs  of  that  State  had  been  consistently  opposed  to  the 
extension  of  slavery;  and,  although  the  party  had  a  full  share  of 
"  Silver  Grays,"  the  more  anti-slavery  wing  was  in  control  in 
1854.  The  Free  Democrats  early  put  into  the  field  Simeon 

1  See  A.  E.  Bovay's  description,  in  F.  A.  Flower,  History  of  the  Repub- 
lican Party,  50  seq. 

2  Quoted  in  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  May  27,  1854.  8  Quoted  ibid. 


FUSION  IN  WISCONSIN  AND  IOWA.  297 

Waters  as  their  candidate  for  Governor.  The  Whig  State  Con- 
vention, which  met  February  22,  nominated  J.  W.  Grimes  for 
Governor  and  adopted  a  plank  condemning  the  Nebraska  Bill. 
Since  it  was  known,  from  the  election  of  1852,  that  the  Free 
Democrats  very  nearly  held  the  balance  of  power,  the  Whig 
leaders,  especially  Grimes,  were  anxious  to  bring  about  a  con- 
centration of  anti-Nebraska  sentiment ; 1  and  by  March  it  had  be- 
come evident  that  the  Northern  States  were  about  to  unite  against 
the  principle  of  non-intervention.  Hence  the  Free  Democratic 
leaders,  at  Whig  suggestion,  called  a  State  Convention  at  Craw- 
fordsville  to  decide  on  the  proper  course  to  pursue  under  the 
circumstances.  On  March  28,  after  long  deliberation,  it  was  re- 
solved that  the  best  way  to  rebuke  the  Nebraska  swindle  was  to 
vote  for  Grimes.  "  The  standing  of  Mr.  Grimes,"  said  the  Iowa 
True  Democrat,  "  was  known  by  many  of  the  oldest  and  most 
faithful  members  of  the  convention  .  .  .  they  were  ready  to  vouch 
for  his  soundness.  We  therefore  in  conjunction  with  every  in- 
dependent in  the  State  go  in,  heart  and  hand,  to  make  J.  W. 
Grimes  Governor  of  Iowa."  2  This  indorsement  of  Grimes  had 
the  effect  of  driving  from  his  support  most  of  the  Hunker 
Whigs ;  3  but  after  the  coalition  had  gained  a  hard-earned  tri- 
umph in  the  August  election,  it  was  unencumbered  by  incon- 
gruous elements.  The  Free  Democrats  by  their  action  lost 
nothing  and  gained  everything;  and  Iowa,  hitherto  the  most 
pro-slavery  of  the  free  States,  sprang  at  a  bound  ahead  of  In- 
diana and  Illinois,  to  stand  beside  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  and 
Ohio  in  the  anti-slavery  column. 

With  the  exception  of  Illinois,  every  Northwestern  State  had 
gone  over  to  the  new  organization,  and  tne  end  for  which  the 
Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties  had  been  laboring  for  fourteen 
years  had  at  last  been  attained,  — the  formation  of  a  powerful 
and  well-organized  party  absolutely  opposed  to  the  influence  of 
slavery. 

1  W.  Salter,  Life  ofj.  W.  Grimes,  115. 

2  Quoted  in  Chicago  Journal,  June  13,  1854. 
8  W.  Salter,  Life  ofj.  W.  Grimes,  54. 


CHAPTER   XX. 

THE   RESULT   OF   TWENTY   YEARS'   EFFORT. 
1834-1854. 

THE  anti-slavery  societies  of  1834,  the  Liberty  party  of  1841, 
the  Free  Soil  party  of  1848,  and  its  other  form  the  Free  De- 
mocracy of  1851,  all  set  before  themselves  the  same  end, — 
to  bring  the  North  to  realize  its  relation  to  slavery  and  to  exer- 
cise its  constitutional  rights  to  repress  and  discourage  the  insti- 
tution in  every  possible  way.  In  1854  their  hopes  began  to  be 
realized  by  the  birth  in  the  Northwest  of  a  new  national  party, 
which  accomplished  the  tremendous  task  of  destroying  slavery. 
The  question  which  tests  the  real  worth  of  all  these  anti-slavery 
organizations  is  simply  this :  How  much  did  they  contribute  to 
this  final  result?  To  those  who  consider  that  the  history  of  the 
United  States  is  prepared  in  Congress  and  settled  by  national 
elections,  and  who  consequently  disregard  all  unsuccessful  third 
parties  as  unworthy  of  study,  this  question  is  of  little  moment. 
But  no  history  is  more  one-sided  than  mere  parliamentary  or 
legislative  annals.  Especially  is  it  a  mistake  to  disregard  local 
political  history  in  the  United  States ;  for,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
half  the  political  battles  of  the  period  before  the  Civil  War  were 
fought  out  in  State  legislatures  and  State  elections,  and  Con- 
gress did  little  more  than  ratify  the  results. 

As  an  outgrowth  of  conscientious  scruples,  warm  sympathies, 
keen  political  foresight,  and  habits  of  thought  inherited  from  a 
New  England  ancestry,  the  anti-slavery  movement  as  a  moral 
force  in  the  Northwest  deserves  a  fuller  treatment  than  can  be 
given  in  a  work  »which  deals  with  it  as  a  political  engine.  In 


EFFECTS  ON  PUBLIC  OPINION.  299 

two  ways,  one  direct  and  one  indirect,  the  third-party  move- 
ment was  effective.  The  direct  method  was  agitation,  persistent 
dwelling  on  the  sinfulness  of  slavery,  on  the  duty  of  the  North 
to  rid  the  national  government  of  all  contact  with  it,  and  on  the 
absolute  necessity  of  resisting  all  its  encroachments.  To  the 
unceasing  activity  of  the  abolitionists,  of  the  Liberty  men,  and 
later  of  the  Free  Democrats,  must  in  no  small  degree  be  as- 
cribed the  change  in  public  sentiment  which  took  place  between 
1830  and  1854.  When  all  due  credit  has  been  given  to  Con- 
gressional struggles,  to  industrial  and  physiographical  reasons 
for  conflict  between  the  sections,  it  remains  true  that,  without 
vigorous,  untiring,  often  town-to-town  and  house-to-house  work, 
the  publishing  of  newspapers,  the  distribution  of  documents, 
and  the  incessant  reiteration  of  the  incompatibility  between 
slavery  and  freedom,  Northwestern  sentiment  could  not  have 
been  prepared  to  alter  with  such  a  mighty  force  and  unanimity 
as  it  showed  in  the  year  1854.^ 

Indirectly,  the  anti-slaver^gitators  affected  public  opinion 
through  politics.  They  demanded  anti-slavery  political  action, 
and  from  the  first  threatened  not  to  vote  for  such  candidates 
as  did  not  satisfy  them.  They  soon  showed  that  they  were 
"  a  vote "  which  might  be  attracted  or  repelled ;  and  hence 
members  of  the  old  parties,  otherwise  indifferent,  began  with 
increasing  frequency  to  seek  by  protestations  of  some  sort  to 
enlist  their  support.  In  the  years  after  1843  this  practice  be- 
came  a  potent  means  of  anti-slavery  education.  Every  Whig^ 
or  Democratic  candidate  in  a  region  where  abolitionists  were  ( 
numerous  felt  obliged  to  define  his  position  on  slavery.  Whig  / 
papers  that  vituperated  the  Liberty  men  usually  based  their 
arguments  on  the  claim  that  they  were  themselves  equally 
anti-slavery  with  the  "Birney  party,"  and  at  the  same  time 
were  far  more  efficient  in  their  action.  These  two  ways  in 
which  anti-slavery  agitation  affected  the  public  in  the  North- 
west, without  discussing  other  factors,  are  sufficiently  impor- 
tant to  account,  in  large  measure,  for  the  prevailing  sentiment 
of  1854. 

As  between  the  various  successive  forms  assumed   by  the 
agitation,  the  greatest  credit  is  of  course  due  to  the  earliest. 


300  TWENTY   YEARS'1   EFFORT. 

It  was  the  non-partisan,  purely  moral  action  of  the  anti-slavery 
societies  that  laid  the  foundations  for  anti-slavery  action  not 
only  in  the  third  party,  but  within  the  old  parties  as  well ;  it 
was  this  action  that  produced  Seward,  B.  F.  Wade,  and  Greeley, 
as  well  as  Chase,  Lewis,  Lovejoy,  and  Birney,  and  that  pro- 
vided a  medium  in  which  they  could  act. 

With  the  advent  of  the  Liberty  party  anti-slavery  action  as- 
sumed a  narrower  form.  Without  abandoning  their  original 
object  of  converting  the  North,  the  Liberty  leaders  from 
this  time  onward  phrased  their  purpose  differently:  they  now 
aimed,  as  did  the  Free  Soilers,  to  build  up  a  Northern  party. 
'  In  this  direct  purpose  no  one  will  assert  that  any  third-party 
organization  approached  success.  It  is  true  that  there  was  no 
year  in  which,  unassisted,  it  elected  more  than  three  Con- 
gressmen in  the  Northwest,  or  more  than  twenty  or  thirty 
members  of  the  legislatures  in  all  six  States  together.  In 
fact,  the  Liberty  party  in  the  Northwest  never  carried  any 
electoral  district,  larger  than  a  township,  by  a  plurality  of  its 
own  votes.  In  this  matter,  however,  we  must  discriminate 
between  the  methods  of  the  two  organizations.  The  Liberty 
party  stuck  to  the  creed  of  entirely  separate  action,  indiffer- 
ent alike  to  Whig  and  Democrat,  and  relying  upon  the  spread 
of  its  principles  among  the  people  for  an  increase  of  its  vote; 
the  Free  Soil  party,  on  the  other  hand,  was  perfectly  willing 
to  help  elect  men  of  other  parties  if  they  professed  its  ideas, 
or  to  gain  the  help  of  other  parties  in  electing  its  own  can- 
didates. The  result  was  that  although,  unaided,  the  Free 
Soil  party  was  practically  little  stronger  in  the  Northwest 
than  its  predecessor,  it  was  able,  by  means  of  coalitions  of 
various  kinds,  to  place  in  office  a  very  considerable  number 
of  anti-slavery  men.  Beside  helping  to  elect  legislative  or  local 
officers  in  several  States,  the  Free  Soilers  sent  to  one  or  the 
other  House  of  Congress  Chase,  Edward  Wade,  Giddings, 
Root,  Townshend,  Newton,  and  Campbell,  from  Ohio; 
Julian  from  Indiana;  Sprague,  Conger,  and  Penniman,  from 
Michigan ;  Durkee  and  Doty  from  Wisconsin ;  and  several 
others,  whose  success  was  probably  due  to  Free  Democratic 
votes.  Immediately  after  the  Free  Soil  revolt  of  1848,  while 


ESTIMATE  OF  POLITICAL  RESULTS.  3OI 

the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  for  the  time  common  political  prop- 
erty in  the  Northwest,  several  Senators  and  Representatives 
were  chosen  by  the  old  parties,  very  largely  on  account  of 
their  anti-slavery  professions,  —  notably  Whitcomb  of  Indi- 
ana, and  Doty  and  Walker  of  Wisconsin;  the  nomination 
and  election  of  such  men  were  indirectly  due  to  anti-slavery 
organization. 

The  presence  of  some  of  these  men  in  Congress  proved  of 
very  great  benefit  to  the  anti-slavery  cause;  but,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  above,  the  very  system  of  coalition  which  elected 
them  quickly  disintegrated  the  Free  Soil  party,  and  thus  nul- 
lified the  purpose  expressed  in  the  Buffalo  platform,  —  to  found 
a  rJermainent  Northern  party.  The  coalitions,  moreover,  almost 
invariably  caused  suspicion,  and  exposed  the  Free  Democrats  to 
the  charges  of  "office-seeking"  and  "greed  for  spoils,"  faults 
which,  to  the  virtuous  sensibilities  of  the  party  not  included  in 
the  coalition,  were  extremely  painful,  and  to  the  scrupulous  of 
all  parties  were  distasteful.  In  contrast  with  the  Liberty  party,  / 
which  from  1840  to  1846  showed  a  steady  increase  in  its  vote,  \ 
the  Free  Soil  party,  after  its  beginning  in  1848,  went  from  bad 
to  worse,  and  in  1851  had  entirely  lost  State  organization^  in 
the  Northwest,  except  in  Iowa,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin.  As  a 
means  for  building  up  a  party,  indiscriminate  coalition  was 
proved  to  be  even  worse  than  absolute  refusal  to  vote  for  or 
with  the  regular  parties./  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  how-> 
ever,  that  the  period  from  1848  to  1850  was  one  of  crisis:  the 
Congressional  struggle  over  slavery  in  the  Territories  was  at 
its  height,  and  did  not  end  until  the  summer  of  1850  brought 
the  Compromise.  In  such  times  it  seemed  more  important  to 
have  anti-slavery  men  in  office,  especially  in  Congress,  than  to 
devote  time  to  separate  party-building. 

An  obvious  difficulty  encountered  by  the  Liberty  and  Free 
Soil  parties  was  that  their  policy  was  national  and  had  no  neces- 
sary reference  to  State  issues.  Belief  in  the  necessity  of  aboli- 
tion in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  in  the  advisability  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  or  in  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  was  appropriate  in  a  Congressional  or  a  Presidential 
candidate,  but  was  not  especially  pertinent  in  an  aspirant  for  the 


302  TWENTY  YEARS^  EFFORT. 

legislature,  and  seemed  wholly  unnecessary  in  district  judges, 
sheriffs,  and  minor  municipal  officers.  Political  organization  in 
the  Northwest  at  that  period  was  not  so  thorough  as  entirely  to 
subordinate  State  elections  to  national  issues;  and  the  anti-slavery 
parties  suffered  from  this  cause.  Nevertheless,  the  disturbing 
effect  of  State  and  local  issues  must  not  be  exaggerated;  for 
politics,  after  1845,  were  so  permeated  by  the  slavery  question 
that  the  Free  Soilers  had  plenty  of  reason  to  keep  up  their 
agitation  in  years  when  there  was  no  national  election. 

After  1850,  the  Free  Democratic  party  renewed  its  youth, 
and  in  1853  showed  that  it  had  reached  the  true  policy  for  a 
third  party,  —  namely,  the  middle  course  between  absolute 
separation  and  unreserved  coalition.  Hence,  in  1854,  when  the 
signs  of  the  times  showed  that  the  longed-for  day  had  come,  its 
members  were  willing  to  abandon  their  organization  and  to  join 
the  new  party. 

In  the  boldness  of  its  political  manoeuvres,  its  great  alterna- 
tions of  fortune,  and  its  strong  revival  at  the  end  of  its  career, 
the  Free  Soil  party  of  the  Northwestern  States  was  far  more 
remarkable  than  its  sister  party  in  the  East.  Nevertheless, 
between  the  individual  Northwestern  States,  alike  as  they  are 
in  these  general  characteristics,  great  and  not  entirely  explicable 
differences  exist.  Ohio  offers  the  greatest  interest;  not  from 
the  size  of  its  anti-slavery  vote,  for  Liberty  men  and  Free  Demo- 
crats alike  were  throughout  in  a  hopeless  minority;  nor  from 
occasional  successes,  which  were  significant  only  in  the  sena- 
torial elections  of  1849  and  1851;  nor  from  its  campaigns,  for 
in  none  of  them  except  that  of  1853  do  we  find  any  very  marked 
effect  on  public  sentiment  outside  the  party;  but  from  the  per- 
sonal character  of  the  leaders.  From  the  time  of  Theodore 
Weld's  great  tour,  to  the  foundation  of  the  Republican  party, 
we  find  in  the  anti-slavery  ranks  a  greater  number  of  able  men 
than  ever  worked  before  in  such  a  cause:  Weld,  Birney,  Bailey, 
Morris,  Lewis,  Chase,  King,  Root,  Wade,  Giddings,  Spaulding, 
Brinckerhoff,  and  the  rest,  were  a  group  without  a  parallel  in  any 
other  Northwestern  State,  or  in  any  State,  except,  perhaps, 
Massachusetts.  It  was  the  pre-eminent  ability  and  devotion  of 
these  men  which  gave  the  third  party  of  Ohio  its  vigor,  its  per- 


DIFFERENT  GROUPS  OF  LEADERS.  303 

sistence,  and  its  oratorical  influence ;  and  which  kept  it  alive  at 
the  lowest  ebb  of  party  fortunes. 

In  Indiana,  on  the  contrary,  both  the  Liberty  and  Free  Demo- 
cratic parties  show  fewer  points  of  interest.  The  State  was  so 
largely  under  the  domination  of  Southern  ideas  that  anti-slavery 
work  of  any  kind  was  a  hard,  up-hill  struggle ;  and  Indiana  pro- 
duced no  men,  except  Julian  and  Harding,  of  the  real  calibre  of 
leaders.  Judge  Stevens,  Vaile,  Robinson,  Cravens,  and  Hull 
were  earnest,  devoted  men;  but  they  were  not  of  the  same 
quality  as  the  Ohio  group.  Had  Bailey,  Birney,  Lewis,  Wade, 
Chase,  and  the  rest,  looked  to  Indianapolis  instead  of  to  Colum- 
bus in  the  years  after  1840,  the  anti-slavery  cause  of  Indiana 
might  have  had  a  different  story. 

In  Michigan,  the  third-party  movement  was  an  alternation  of 
crescendo  and  diminuendo.  The  Liberty  party  of  that  State, 
which  from  1840  to  1844  was  stronger  in  proportion  to  its  rivals 
than  in  any  other  Northwestern  State,  soon  fell  off  to  a  low 
point;  the  Free  Soil  party  after  a  similarly  strong  beginning, 
fell  even  more  rapidly  and  to  a  lower  level.  The  reason  was 
that,  in  spite  of  the  amount  of  strong  anti-slavery  sentiment  in 
the  State,  there  was  no  one  man  with  enough  of  the  qualities 
of  a  leader  to  hold  the  party  together.  Birney  was  a  Michigan 
man  only  by  adoption ;  and  his  activity  ceased  after  his  acci- 
dent in  1845.  Besides  him  no  Liberty  or  Free  Soil  man  of 
Michigan  attained  a  national  reputation  in  those  days,  or  even 
any  very  wide  notice  in  anti-slavery  circles.  Holmes,  Stewart, 
Clarke,  Bingham,  Blair,  and  Christiancy  were  strong,  able  men ; 
but  no  one  of  them  had  enough  of  the  spirit  or  the  force  of 
Giddings  or  Lewis  to  keep  a  third  party  alive  in  the  face  of 
defeat. 

In  Illinois  the  brilliant  promise  of  the  Liberty  party  in  the 
northern  district  resulted  in  little  but  discouragement,  after  the 
Free  Soil  outburst  had  died  away  and  the  anti-Cass  Democrats 
had  returned  to  their  old  party.  Lovejoy  and  Codding  were 
strong,  radical  speakers,  active  and  devoted;  but,  like  Julian, 
they  were  unable  single-handed  to  create  a  party. 

In  Iowa  the  leaders  were  men  of  character  and  devotion,  and, 
as  the  persistence  of  the  party  through  decline  and  discourage- 


304  TWENTY  YEARS1  EFFORT. 

ment  shows,  they  had  some  of  the  qualities  of  leadership ;  but 
they  were  in  general  philanthropists  rather  than  statesmen,  and 
the  State  came  very  late  into  line  on  the  slavery  question. 

That  Wisconsin  failed  to  surpass  Ohio  or  any  of  the  other 
Western  States  in  anti-slavery  success  can  be  laid  only  to  a  de- 
ficiency in  leadership.  Durkee,  Holton,  Booth,  and  Hastings 
were  all  up  to  the  level  of  the  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  leaders  in 
most  other  States ;  but  there  was  no  one  man  of  the  first  rank. 
Durkee  in  his  Congressional  district  had  an  opportunity  to  be  a 
second  Giddings ;  yet  with  all  his  popularity  he  lacked  entirely 
the  qualities  that  made  Giddings  for  twenty  years  the  idol  of  the 
Western  Reserve ;  and  he  failed  to  retain  his  seat  With  oppor- 
tunities of  extraordinary  promise  in  1849,  the  Wisconsin  Free 
Soil  leaders  allowed  themselves  to  be  thoroughly  outwitted  by 
the  Democrats ;  whereas  a  far-sighted  party  leader  would  have 
seen  and  avoided  the  danger. 

Yet,  after  all  due  credit  is  given  to  leadership, -it  should  be 
said  that  another  factor  played  a  great  part  in  giving  excep- 
tional anti-slavery  success  in  some  States.  Nothing  is  so  stimu- 
lating to  a  party  as  to  have  some  district  in  which  it  is  generally 
victorious,  to  which  in  any  circumstances  it  may  reasonably  look 
for  support.  When  such  a  region  exists,  the  party  is  always 
sure  of  an  official  mouthpiece  and  of  the  consideration  that 
attaches  to  a  constituency.  It  was  this  circumstance  that  made 
it  so  much  easier  to  maintain  anti-slavery  spirit  in  Ohio  and 
Wisconsin  than  in  the  other  States.  The  Western  Reserve, 
especially  the  eastern  half  of  it,  was  overwhelmingly  for  Free 
Soil.  In  the  darkest  hour  the  party  could  be  sure  of  electing 
Giddings  and  several  Representatives  in  the  legislature.  Around 
the  Western  Reserve  anti-slavery  sentiment  centred;  on  it  the 
Liberty  and  Free  Democratic  men  of  all  parts  of  the  State  re- 
lied for  support.  In  Wisconsin,  Racine,  Kenosha,  and  Wai- 
worth  counties  were  always  sure  to  give  a  plurality  for  Free 
Soil ;  the  party  might  fade  elsewhere,  but  these  counties  were 
firm.  Hence,  in  1850,  in  the  lowest  ebb  of  Free  Soil  action, 
Durkee  was  returned  to  Congress. 

Illinois  came  very  near  having  such  a  centre,  as  is  shown  by 
the  vote  for  President  in  the  Fourth  Congressional  District  in 


LOCAL  ANTI-SLAVERY  CENTRES.  305 

I848.1  Had  Wentworth,  the  local  Democratic  leader,  a  man 
of  strong  Free  Soil  sympathies,  thrown  his  influence  on  the 
side  of  the  third  party,  the  northern  counties  of  Illinois  would 
probably  have  become  as  ardent  a  third-party  centre  as  those 
of  southeastern  Wisconsin  and  the  Ohio  Western  Reserve. 
When  Wentworth  turned  aside,  the  Presidential  Free  Soil  vote 
of  1848  faded  away,  and  his  influence  kept  the  district  true 
to  the  national  Democratic  party. 

-In  Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Michigan,  there  was  no  such  region. 
In  these  States  the  only  Congressional  or  legislative  success 
possible  was  that  gained  by  coalition ;  for  the  Free  Democratic 
vote  in  Indiana  and  Iowa  was  too  small  for  separate  action,  and 
in  Michigan  too  evenly  distributed  over  the  State.  Hence  trie 
coalitions,  and  hence  the  inability  of  Julian  and  Christiancy  to 
maintain  themselves  or  to  keep  up  their  party. 

Upon  both  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties  criticisms  may  be 
passed,  criticisms  which  apply  less  to  the  regenerated  Free 
Democracy  of  1 852-54.  In  the  first  place,  both  parties  were  liable 
to  charges  of  too  great  partisanship.  Single-mindedness  was, 
of  course,  an  integral  part  of  the  creed  of  the  Liberty  party; 
but  it  was  thoroughly  impolitic  for  a  movement  which  was  based 
on  an  attempt  to  draw  votes  from  the  old  organizations.  Over- 
devotion  to  one's  own  organization  leads  inevitably  to  the  dis- 
paragement of  others;  and  both  Liberty  .men  and  Free  Soilers 
had  a  habit  of  wholesale  denunciation  that  overshot  the  mark. 
It  was  necessary  to  be  firm  in  asserting  that  Whig  and  Demo- 
crat parties  as  such  were  untrustworthy  in  regard  to  slavery; 
but  it  did  not  follow  that  every  man  of  anti-slavery  professions 
who  voted  the  Whig  or  the  Democratic  ticket  was  a  liar  or  a 
hypocrite,  or  that  every  man  who  voted  the  third  ticket  was  sin- 

1  It  was  as  follows :  — 

Cass.  Taylor.  Van  Buren. 

9,820  9,189  9,632 

Or,  if  we  take  the  later  first  and  second  districts,  comprising  the  sixteen 
northern  counties,  it  was  as  follows  :  — 

Cass.  Taylor.  Van  Buren. 

First  District ....     4,466  5*829  4,100 

Second  District  .    .    .    4,435  4,373  4,805 

20 


306 


TWENTY  YEARS'  EFFORT. 


cere  and  trustworthy.  Such  language  seemed  narrow,  bigoted, 
and  sometimes  self-righteous  and  hypocritical.  It  is  preposter- 
ous, of  course,  to  expect  reformers  subjected  to  floods  of  billings- 
gate to  keep  a  cool  philosophic  temper,  and  to  exhibit  the 
astuteness  of  practical  politicians ;  but  some  individuals  in  the 
Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties  in  each  of  the  States  did  almost 
as  much  to  delay  the  triumph  of  their  cause  by  their  uniform 
harshness  and  extravagance  of  language  as  they  did  by  their 
courage  and  devotion  to  prepare  for  the  overthrow  of  slavery. 

Besides  this  intense  partisanship,  the  anti-slavery  men  of  the 
Northwest  sometimes  exhibited  what  seems  extreme  short- 
sightedness. Their  hope,  in  1849,  ^at  tne  "United  Demo- 
cracy "  would  prove  the  longed-for  anti-slavery  party ;  their 
feeling  that  the  natural  allies  of  the  Free  Soilers  lay  in  the  party 
of  Cass,  Buchanan,  Polk,  Foote,  and  Davis,  is  extremely  sur- 
prising. It  has  been  pointed  out,  however,  that  in  this  matter 
the  influence  of  the  New  York  Barnburners  was  strong,  and  that 
the  warm  support  received  by  Taylor  in  the  South,  coupled  with 
Cass's  success  in  the  Northwest,  had  obscured  the  real  positions 
held  by  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  previously  to  1848. 

A  third  fault  was  the  undue  influence  of  names  and  of  theo- 
retical considerations  upon  anti-slavery  men.  The  fact  that 
abolition  was  a  step  toward  democracy;  that  the  equal  political 
rights  for  which  the  opponents  of  the  Black  Laws  had  struggled 
were  characteristic  of  democracy ;  that  liberality,  philanthropy, 
and  reform  were  democratic ;  these  considerations  led  the  Free 
Soilers  of  1848,  even  those  who  were  Liberty  men  or  Whigs,  to 
find  some  necessary  affinity  between  themselves,  a  "  demo- 
cratic "  party,  and  another  party  which  called  itself"  Democratic," 
even  though  the  main  strength  of  that  other  "  Democracy"  was 
and  always  had  been  in  the  hands  of  slave-holders.  So  little 
can  radical  reformers  look  beneath  the  surface ! 

The  results  accomplished  by  the  Liberty  and  Free  Demo- 
7cratic  parties  were  mainly  educational.  They  stirred  up  the 
Western  conscience,  kept  the  subject  of  slavery  constantly  be- 
fore the  public,  powerfully  affected  the  policy  and  public  ex- 
pressions of  the  old  parties,  and  by  their  spokesmen  in  Congress 
played  an  influential  part  in  national  politics.  More  important 


ANTI-SLAVERY  FAULTS  AND  MERITS.  307 

than  all,  they  familiarized  the  minds  of  all  Northwestern  people  i 
with  political  anti-slavery  arguments,  furnished  them  with  the 
proper  constitutional  and  political  vocabulary,  and  thus  be- 
queathed to  the  Republicans,  in  1854,  a  strong  practical  pro- 
gramme. Without  this  heritage  of  principles,  experience,  and 
determination,  the  Republican  party  would  have  been  a  failure, 
if  not  an  impossibility.  Thus,  in  spite  of  mistakes  in  method 
and  defeats  in  elections,  the  anti-slavery  political  organizations 
played  an  indispensable  part  in  preparing  the  way  for  the  Re- 
publican movement.  Best  of  all,  they  trained  in  every  State  a 
number  of  able,  devoted  men,  who  in  the  Republican  party 
found  an  opportunity  to  exercise  the  talents  developed  and  the 
experience  gained  in  the  arduous  school  of  the  Liberty  and 
Free  Soil  parties. 

Behind  the  practical  results  of  a  long  political  struggle,  in 
the  foundation  of  a  new  national  party,  we  must  not  forget  that 
there  was  a  tremendous  moral  force.  For  a  young  voter  or  a 
young  aspirant  for  political  honors  to  cast  in  his  lot  with  the 
third  party  was  at  almost  any  time  and  in  almost  every  State 
an  act  of  heroic  self-abnegation.  As  we  read  of  committees  and 
nominations,  and  tickets  and  campaigns,  we  forget  that  nearly 
all  of  these  meetings  and  urgent  appeals  were  the  laughing-stock 
of  both  the  regular  organizations ;  that  the  Liberty  leaders  and 
nearly  all  of  the  Free  Soil  leaders  were  cut  off  from  any  hope  of 
election  to  any  office  in  the  gift  of  the  people.  Mistakes  and 
miscalculations  and  intemperance  of  language  were  effaced  by 
the  magnificent  purpose  to  arouse  the  nation  to  a  consciousness 
of  its  own  guilt  and  danger  from  slavery.  To  be  sure,  the  names  \ 
of  the  leaders  who  lived  beyond  1854  are  the  names  of  the  chief-  N^ 
tains  of  the  Republican  party,  of  the  towers  of  strength  in  the 
Civil  War,  —  Chase,  Giddings,  Hale,  Bingham,  Julian  —  they  had 
their  reward  of  responsibility  and  fame.  But  what  was  there  for 
Birney  and  Lewis,  and  thousands  of  obscure  men,  but  the  simple 
consciousness  of  doing  their  duty  as  they  saw  it,  and  the  approval 
of  a  little  band  of  fellow-workers  ?  The  highest  service  of  Liberty, 
Free  Soil,  and  Free  Democratic  organization,  was  to  accustom 
men  to  a  steady  adherence  to  a  great  principle,  in  the  face  of 
opposition,  contempt,  and  abuse,  —  to  do  right  for  right's  sake. 


APPENDICES. 


APPENDIX  A. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

IN  the  present  scattered  condition  of  the  materials  for  western  history 
the  writer  cannot  hope  that  he  has  succeeded  in  discovering  all  sources 
for  the  period  under  consideration.  This,  then,  must  be  looked  upon  as 
a  preliminary  attempt  at  forming  a  bibliography,  and  as  such  is  doubtless 
open  to  correction  in  many  respects.  The  author  can  desire  nothing 
more  heartily  than  the  pointing  out  of  any  omissions. 

The  materials  from  which  this  paper  has  been  prepared  were  found 
in  the  following  places:  Harvard  University  Library;  Boston  Public 
Library  ;  Congregational  Library,  Boston  ;  American  Antiquarian  Society, 
Worcester ;  Ohio  State  Library,  Columbus  ;  Western  Reserve  Historical 
Society,  Cleveland  ;  the  Cleveland  Leader  office  ;  Indiana  State  Library, 
Indianapolis  ;  Indianapolis  Public  Library ;  Detroit  Public  Library ;  Ann 
Arbor  Pioneer  Society;  the  Chicago  Journal  office  ;  and  the  Wisconsin 
Historical  Society,  Madison.  Information  has  also  been  gathered  from 
collections  of  newspapers  and  other  material  in  possession  of  the  follow- 
ing gentlemen  :  George  W.  Julian  and  G.  S.  Nicholson,  Indianapolis ; 
R.  M.  Zug  and  G.  W.  Clark,  Detroit ;  S.  D.  Hastings,  Madison,  Wis- 
consin ;  W.  P.  Howe,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Iowa ;  Edward  L.  Pierce,  Milton, 
Massachusetts ;  Albert  Bushnell  Hart  and  W.  H.  Siebert,  Cambridge, 
Massachusetts  j  and  the  late  Theodore  D.  Weld,  Hyde  Park,  Massa- 
chusetts. 

GENERAL    HISTORIES. 

DYER,  OLIVER Great  Senators  of  the  United  States.  New 

York,  1889. 

FLOWER,  FRANK  A.  ...  History  of  the  Republican  Party.  Spring- 
field, Illinois,  1884. 


310  APPENDIX  A. 

HINSDALE,  BURKE  A.     .     .    The  Old  Northwest.     New  York,  1888. 
LANGELAND,  KNUD     .     .     .     Nordmaendene  i  Amerika.     Chicago,  1889. 
PIKE,  JAMES  S First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War.     New  York, 

1879. 
WILLEY,  AUSTIN    ....     The  History  of   the  Anti-Slavery  Cause  in 

State  and  Nation.     Portland,  Maine,  1886. 
WILSON,  HENRY     ....     History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of   the  Slave 

Power    in    America.      3    vols.       Boston, 

1872-77. 

Of  the  foregoing,  Pike's  and  Flower's  works  contain  a  few  documents 
of  minor  importance  ;  Dyer's,  Willey's,  and  to  some  extent  Wilson's,  have 
the  value  of  personal  reminiscences. 


LOCAL    HISTORIES. 
OHIO. 

ADDISON,  H.  M An     Episode    of   Politics.      Magazine     of 

Western  History,  IX.  273  (Jan.  1889). 
FAIRCHILD,  JAMES  H.     .     .     Oberlin :     the    College    and     the     Colony. 

Oberlin,  1883. 

FORD,  HENRY  A.  and  K.  B.     History  of  Cincinnati.     [Cleveland]  1881. 
HOWE,  HENRY Historical    Collections    of   Ohio.      3    vols. 

Columbus,  1889-91. 
HUTCHINS,  JOHN    ....     The    Underground    Railroad.     Magazine  of 

Western  History,  V.  672  (March,  1887). 
LEE,  ALFRED  E History  of  the  City  of  Columbus,  Capital  of 

Ohio.      2  vols.      New  York  and  Chicago, 

1892. 
RIDDLE,  ALBERT  G.  .     .     .     History    of    Geauga    and    Lake    Counties. 

Philadelphia,  1878. 
.     .     .     Recollections  of  the  Forty-Seventh  General 

Assembly  of  Ohio,  1847-48.     Magazine  of 

Western  History,  VI.  341  (Aug.  1897). 
.     .     .     Rise  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Sentiment  on  the 

Western  Reserve.     Magazine  of  Western 

History,  VI.  145  (June  1887). 
.     .     .     The  Election  of  S.  P.  Chase  to  the  Senate, 

February,  1849.     Republic,  IV.  179. 

RYAN,  DANIEL  J A  History  of  Ohio.     Columbus,  1888. 

TOWNSHEND,  NORTON  S.     .     The     Forty-Seventh    General   Assembly  of 

Ohio.     Magazine  of  Western  History,  VI. 

623  (Oct.  1887). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

WILLIAMS,  H.  L.  and  BRO.,  publishers.     History  of  Trumbull  and  Mahon- 

ing  Counties.     2  vols.     Cleveland,  1882. 

.     .     .     History  of  Washington  County.     Cleveland, 

1881. 
•        .     .     .     History  of    Lorain    County.      Philadelphia, 

1879- 

WILLIAMS,  WILLIAM  W.    .     History  of  Ashtabula  County.     Philadelphia, 

1878. 


INDIANA. 

CHAPMAN,  C.  C.  and  Co.,  publishers.  History  of  St.  Joseph  County.  Chi- 
cago, 1880. 

PLEAS,  ELWOOD  ....  Henry  County :  Past  and  Present.  New 

Castle,  1871. 

YOUNG,  ANDREW  W.      .     .     History  of  Wayne  County.    Cincinnati,  1872. 


CLARKE,  HARVEY  K. 
FARMER,  SILAS      .     .    . 
RUST,  E.  G 


MICHIGAN. 

Under  the  Oaks.     Detroit  Tribune,  July  6, 

1879- 

The  History  of  Detroit  and  Michigan.  De- 
troit, 1884. 

Calhoun  County  Business  Directory  for 
1869-70,  with  a  History  of  the  County. 
Battle  Creek,  1869. 


ILLINOIS. 

ANDREAS,  ALFRED  T.    .     .     History    of     Chicago.      3    vols.      Chicago, 

1884-86. 

CHAPMAN,  C.  C.,  and  Co.     .     History  of  Knox  County.     Chicago,  1878. 
ERWIN,  MILO The  History  of  Williamson  County.    Marion, 

1876. 
KETT,  H.  F.,  and  Co.,  publishers.     The    Past    and   Present    of    La   Salle 

County.     Chicago,   1877. 
.     .     .     History  of   Winnebago    County.      Chicago, 

1877. 
LE  BARON,  W.,  and  Co.,  publishers.     The   Past  and   Present   of    Kane 

County.     Chicago,  1878. 
.     .     .     The   Past  and    Present    of    Lake    County. 

Chicago,  1877. 
MOSES,  JOHN Illinois,    Historical  and  Statistical.     2  vols. 

Chicago,  1889-92. 


312  APPENDIX  A. 


WISCONSIN. 

BAKER,  FLORENCE  E.  .  .  A  Brief  History  of  the  Elective  Franchise  in 

Wisconsin.  Madison,  1894. 

BUCK,  J.  S Pioneer  History  of  Milwaukee.  4  vols.  Mil- 
waukee, 1876-86. 

STRONG,  MOSES  M.  .  .  .  History  of  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  from 

1836  to  1848.  Madison,  1885. 

WESTERN  HISTORICAL  COMPANY.  History  of  Rock  County.  Chicago,  1879 
.  .  .  History  of  Waukesha  County.  Chicago, 
1880. 


IOWA. 
.     .     .     History  of  Henry  County.     Chicago,  1879 

Of  the  foregoing  works,  the  reminiscences  published  by  Messrs.  Riddle, 
Townshend,  and  others  in  the  Magazine  of  Western  History  are  of  espe- 
cial value,  as  are  also  the  articles  on  anti-slavery  matters  by  H.  K.  Clarke 
and  J.  H.  Fairchild.  From  the  county  histories  little  is  to  be  gathered, 
least  of  all  from  those  compiled  under  the  direction  of  the  Western  His- 
torical Publishing  Company  of  Chicago.  Occasionally  a  chapter  written 
by  some  anonymous  contributor  on  local  political  history  contains  interest- 
ing political  information  ;  but  in  the  main  the  only  things  to  be  found  are 
the  dates,  names,  and  vicissitudes  of  local  anti-slavery  newspapers. 


BIOGRAPHIES. 

BARTLETT,  DAVID  W.     .     .    Modern  Agitators.    New  York,  1855. 
[BIRNEY,  WILLIAM].  .     .     .     James  G.  Birney  and  his  Times.     New  York, 

1890. 
[BRADBURN,  MRS.  F.  N.]     .     A  Memorial  of  George  Bradburn.     Boston, 

1883. 
Chicago   Tribune Account    of  the    Anti-Slavery   Reunion    at 

Chicago,  June  10-12,  1874. 
FERGUS  HISTORICAL  SERIES.    Reminiscences  of  Early  Chicago  and  Illinois. 

Chicago,  1876  seq. 

FROTHINGHAM,  OCTAVIUS  B.    Gerrit  Smith :  a  biography.    New  York,  1879. 
[GARRISON,  W.  P.  and  F.  J.]    William  Lloyd  Garrison.     1805-1879.    4  vols. 

New  York,  1885-89. 
JULIAN,  GEO.  W The  Life  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings.     Chicago, 

1892. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


313 


JULIAN,  GEO.  W.  . 


[LEWIS,  WILLIAM  G.  W.] 
[MORRIS,  BENJAMIN  F.] 
PARRISH,  W.  D.  .    .    . 

PIERCE,  EDWARD  L.  .    . 


REEMELIN,  CHARLES. 
REID,  HARVEY.      .    . 


RIDDLE,  ALBERT  G.  .  . 
S ALTER,  WILLIAM.  .  . 
SCHUCKERS,  JAMES  W.  . 

STANTON  HENRY  B.  .  . 
[TAPPAN,  LEWIS]  .  . 
TOWNSHEND,  NORTON  S. 


WARDEN,  R.  B. 


WOOLLEN,  W.  W.      . 
WRIGHT,  ELIZUR. 


Political  Recollections.  1840  to  1872.  Chi- 
cago, 1884. 

Speeches  on  Political  Questions.  New  York, 
1872. 

Biographyof  Samuel  Lewis.  Cincinnati,  1857. 

The  Life  of  Thomas  Morris.    Cincinnati,  1856. 

The  Life,  Travels  and  Opinions  of  Benjamin 
Lundy.  Philadelphia,  1847. 

Sketch  of  Dr.  G.  Bailey,  Boston  Traveler, 
June  27,  1859. 

Sketch  of  J.  R.  Giddings,  Boston  Transcript, 
April  8,  1892. 

Life.     Written  by  himself.     Cincinnati,  1892. 

Biographical  Sketch  of  Enoch  Long,  Chi- 
cago Historical  Society's  Collection.  Vol. 
II.  Chicago,  1884. 

The  Life  of  Benjamin  F.  Wade.  Cleveland, 
1886. 

The  Life  of  James  W.  Grimes.  New  York, 
1876. 

The  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Salmon  P. 
Chase.  New  York,  1874. 

Random  Recollections.     New  York,  1886. 

The  Life  of  Arthur  Tappan.  New  York,  1870. 

Salmon  P.  Chase.  Ohio  Archceological  and 
Historical  Quarterly.  September,  1887. 

An  Account  of  the  Private  Life  and  Public 
Services  of  Salmon  Portland  Chase.  Cin- 
cinnati, 1874. 

Biographical  and  Historical  Sketches  of  Early 
Indiana.  Indianapolis,  1883. 

Myron  Holley,  and  what  he  did  for  Liberty 
and  True  Religion.  Boston,  1882. 


Among  these  biographies  there  are  many  so  eulogistic  in  tendency, 
owing  to  filial  affection  or  to  other  reasons,  that  comparatively  little 
space  is  left  for  the  political  questions  of  the  time  ;  others  are  so  meagre 
as  to  contain  little  but  the  bare  facts.  There  are  several,  however,  writ- 
ten either  during  the  anti-slavery  struggle,  or  later  by  those  who  had 
themselves  participated  in  it,  which  are  of  the  highest  importance,  espe- 
cially the  writings  of  G.  W.  Julian,  William  Birney's  Life  of  his  father, 
A.  G.  Riddle's  Life  of  B.  F.  Wade,  and  the  Lives  of  Thomas  Morris  and 
Samuel  Lewis.  The  two  bulky  biographies  of  Salmon  P.  Chase  are  of 


314  APPENDIX  A. 

little  value  except  for  the  documents  which  they  contain.  In  cases  in 
which  the  personal  opinions  of  the  subject  of  the  biography  have  colored 
the  narrative  we  can  fortunately  balance  opposing  tendencies  by  compar- 
ing the  Lives  of  other  men.  Thus  the  Life  of  W.  L.  Garrison  forms  a 
counterpoise  to  the  biographies  of  J.  G.  Birney,  Myron  Holley,  and  Ger- 
rit  Smith. 

PAMPHLETS. 

Address  of  the  Southern  and  Western  Liberty  Convention.  [By  S.  P. 
Chase.  Philadelphia,  1845.] 

Address  to  the  Voters  of  ...  the  Second  Congressional  District  of  Ohio. 
[Elkton,  1843.] 

American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  Reports.     New  York,  1834-50. 

American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society,  Reports.     New  York,  1841-54. 

Correspondence  between  the  Hon.  F.  H.  Elmore  and  James  G.  Birney. 
(The  Anti-Slavery  Examiner,  No.  8.)  New  York,  1838. 

DYER,  OLIVER.  Phonographic  Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  National 
Free  Soil  Convention  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  Buffalo,  1848. 

GARDINER,  O.  C.     The  Great  Issue.     New  York,  1848. 

Legion  of  Liberty,  New  York.     1847. 

Liberty  Almanac.     Syracuse  and  New  York,  1842-51. 

Liberty  Bell.     Boston,  1846. 

Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society,  Reports.     Boston,  1834-50. 

Politics  in  Ohio.  [A  letter  to  Hon.  A.  P.  Edgerton  by  S.  P.  Chase.]  Cin- 
cinnati, 1853. 

Proceedings  of  the  Great  Convention  of  the  Friends  of  Freedom  in  the  East- 
ern and  Middle  States,  held  in  Boston,  Oct.  1-3,  1845.  Lowell,  1845. 

Resolutions  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  on  the  subject  of  Slavery ;  wifh 
the  speech  of  Samuel  D.  Hastings.  New  York,  1849. 

Whig  Almanac.     New  York,  1838-55. 

Out  of  the  floods  of  anti-slavery  pamphlets  poured  forth  in  the  years 
between  1831  and  1855,  very  few  concern  themselves  with  political  his- 
tory. The  most  important  are  the  Whig  Almanac,  invaluable  for  the 
results  of  elections,  the  Liberty  Almanac,  S.  P.  Chase's  letter  to  A.  P. 
Edgerton,  and  O.  C.  Gardiner's  Great  Issue,  a  campaign  pamphlet  of 
1848  which  relates  the  previous  history  of  the  Free  Soil  movement. 

NEWSPAPERS. 

The  writer  knows  of  no  important  collection  of  Western  newspapers 
which  he  has  failed  to  examine,  except  that  of  the  Chicago  Historical 
Society.  This,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  new  building  of  the  Society  was 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  315 

unfinished,  proved  to  be  entirely  inaccessible.  The  following  list  con- 
tains those  journals  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  essay,  Abolitionist, 
Liberty,  or  Free  Soil  papers  being  marked  with  a  star. 

OHIO. 

Cincinnati  Gazette.     Cincinnati,  1844-47. 

Cleveland  Herald.     Cleveland,  1853-54. 
* -Liberty  Herald.     Warren,  1843-46. 
*Ohw  American.     Cleveland,  1844-47. 
*Ohio  Columbian.     Columbus,  1853-54. 

•      *Ohio  Standard.     Columbus,  1848-49. 
Ohio  State  Journal.     Columbus,  1844-54. 
* Palladium  of  Liberty.     Columbus,  1844-45. 

*  Philanthropist,  etc.     Cincinnati,  1836-49. 
*True  Democrat.     Cleveland,  1847-54. 

*  Western  Reserve  Chronicle.    Warren,  1848-54. 

INDIANA. 

*  Free  Labor  Advocate.     New  Garden,  1842,  1846. 
*Free  Territory  Sentinel.     Centre ville,  1848-49. 

Indiana  State  Journal.     Indianapolis,  1842-54. 

* 'Indiana  True  Democrat.     Centreville,  1850-52. 

Indianapolis  Sentinel.     Indianapolis,  1844-53. 

MICHIGAN. 

*  Daily  Democrat.     Detroit,  i8$4. 
Detroit  Advertiser.     Detroit,  1842-54. 
Detroit  Free  Press.     Detroit,  1843-49. 
Michigan  Argus.     Ann  Arbor,  1843-49. 

*  Signal  of  Liberty.     Ann  Arbor,  1844. 
*True  Democrat.    Ann  Arbor,  1847-48. 

ILLINOIS. 

Chicago  Journal.     Chicago,  1844-54. 

*  Western  Citizen.     Chicago,  1844. 

WISCONSIN. 

* American  Freeman.     Waukesha,  1845-48. 

Janesville  Gazette.     Janesville,  1853. 
*Kenosha  Telegraph.     Kenosha,  1849-51. 

Madison  Express.     Madison,  1845-48. 


APPENDIX  A. 

Milwaukee  Coiirier.     Milwaukee,  1842-44. 
Milwaukee  Sentinel.     Milwaukee,  1843-54. 
*  Racine  Advocate.     Racine,  1851-54. 
True  Democrat.     Oshkosh,  1849. 
Watertown  Chronicle.     Watertown,  1853. 
Wisconsin.     Milwaukee,  1848-53. 
Wisconsin  Argus.     Madison,  1849. 
Wisconsin  Democrat.     Madison,  1842-44. 
Wisconsin  State  Journal.     Madison,  1849-54. 

IOWA. 

*Iowa  Free  Democrat.     Mt.  Pleasant,  1849-50. 
*Ioiva  True  Democrat.     Mt.  Pleasant,  1850-52. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 

*  Emancipator.     New  York  and  Boston,  1834-48. 

*  Liberator.     Boston,  1831-41. 

*  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard.     New  York,  1845. 
* National  Era.     Washington,  1847-54. 

New  York  Tribune.     New  York,  1844-54. 
* 'Tocsin  of  Liberty,  later  Albany  Patriot.     Albany,  1843-44. 
Volumes  of  miscellaneous  Western  papers,  1831-54. 


The  newspapers  form  the  principal  source  of  information  for  party 
history.  The  anti-slavery  organs,  of  course,  furnish  us  with  the  most 
direct  information,  but  the  Whig  or  Democratic  journals  are  a  necessary 
check  to  them.  If  any  one  paper  can  be  singled  out  as  the  most  im- 
portant, it  is  undoubtedly  the  National  Era,  from  whose  wide  informa- 
tion, excellent  breadth  of  view,  and  remarkable  fairness  of  judgment  one 
may  gain  a  good  understanding  of  the  whole  field  of  western  politics. 

MANUSCRIPT    MATERIAL. 

The  author  has  unfortunately  been  able  to  find  little  in  the  shape  of  old 
letters,  diaries,  or  similar  material.  The  anti-slavery  agitators  and  poli- 
ticians of  the  Northwest,  in  spite  of  their  firm  conviction  —  if  we  may 
judge  from  their  oft-repeated  assertions  —  that  they  were  making  history, 
seem  to  have  neglected  to  preserve  any  records  of  their  actions.  A  dili- 
gent search  in  the  States  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  and  Iowa  has 
revealed  nothing  of  this  character.  Very  important  manuscripts,  how- 
ever, remain  in  the  papers  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  almost  entirely  inedited, 


BIBLIOGRA  PHY.  3 1 7 

in  the  letters  of  Charles  Sumner,  and  in  the  papers  of  George  W.  Julian. 
From  the  hand  of  Chase  we  have  diaries  extending  from  1830  to  1854,  a 
series  of  letters  to  Sumner,  another  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  and  a  miscellaneous 
letter-book.  Among  the  Sumner  papers  are  to  be  found  a  set  of  letters 
from  Joshua  R.  Giddings  and  many  miscellaneous  letters  from  Western 
men.  Among  the  papers  of  George  W.  Julian  are  diaries,  an  autobio- 
graphical memoir  and  letter-books.  Interesting  and  often  important 
material  has  also  been  found  in  the  scrap-books  of  Salmon  P.  Chase, 
George  W.  Julian,  Samuel  D.  Hastings,  George  W.  Clark,  Albert  G. 
Turner,  and  others. 

PERSONAL    RECOLLECTIONS. 

Though  relying  mainly  on  contemporary  documents,  the  author  has 
not  failecte^et  what  light  he  could  from  the  memories  of  living  men  who 
were  actoS^  the  events  of  fifty  years  ago.  Correspondence  has  been 
held  with  a  number  of  gentlemen,  particularly  Messrs.  William  Birney, 
Sherman  M.  Booth,  A.  E.  Bovay,  John  N.  Bryant,  George  W.  Clark, 
William  B.  Fyffe,  Samuel  D.  Hastings,  George  Hoadly,  Daniel  Huff, 
Isaac  H.  Julian,  Albert  G.  Riddle,  and  Norton  S.  Townshend.  More- 
over, several  hundred  letters,  now  in  possession  of  Wilbur  H.  Siebert,  of 
Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  from  persons  formerly  connected  with  the 
Underground  Railroad,  have  been  placed  at  the  author's  disposal.  He 
has  also  had  access  to  notes  of  conversations  held  by  William  B.  Shaw 
with  A.  E.  Bovay  and  by  Albert  B.  Hart  with  Edward  S.  Hamlin ;  and  he 
has  conversed  personally  with  Messrs.  George  W.  Julian,  Samuel  D.  Hast- 
ings, James  D.  Ligget,  James  F.  Joy,  J.  F.  Conover,  George  W.  Clark, 
Francis  Raymond,  Seymour  Finney,  ex-Senator  James  Harlan,  and  very 
many  others. 


APPENDIX  B. 

LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PRESS  IN  THE  NORTHWEST. 
1836-1854. 

IN  the  Bibliography  (Appendix  A)  are  mentioned  the  newsujpers 
actually  consulted  for  the  preparation  of  this  work.  The  following  is  a 
list  of  the  permanent  and  more  important  Northwestern  Liberty  and 
Free  Soil  papers,  including  all  about  which  the  writer  coul^jet  definite 
information.  The  tables  show,  in  respective  order,  thmpars  during 
which  the  paper  was  issued,  the  place  of  publication,  the  name  of  the 
paper,  and  the  name  of  the  editor,  if  known. 

The  years  given  are  only  those  during  which  the  paper  in  question 
was  published  as  a  Liberty  or  Free  Soil  organ.  Some  journals,  accord- 
ingly, appear  in  the  list  for  a  short  time  only,  although  they  may  have 
existed  much  longer  as  Democratic  or  Whig  organs;  and  all  papers 
are  considered  as  ceasing  in  1854  when  the  Free  Democratic  Party 
disappeared. 


1836-38. 
1838-46. 
1847-48. 
1848-49. 
1  843-46. 
1845-46. 
1845-48. 
1848-54. 

Cincinnati 

Warren    . 
Cadiz  .     . 
Cleveland 
Cleveland 

1 848-54.  P  ainesville 
1848-54.  Warren  . 
1848-54.  Mt.  Vernon 


OHIO. 

Philanthropist .     .     .     . 
(Continued  as  Herald 

National  Press    .     . 

Globe) 

Liberty  Herald      .     .     . 
Liberty  Advocate  .     .     . 
Ohio  American. 
True  Democrat     .     .     . 


1848-54.     Ashtabula     .     Sentinel 


Telegraph 

Western  Reserve  Chronicle. 
Ohio  Times 


J.  G.  Birney. 
Dr.  G.  Bailey. 
Stanley  Mathews. 
J.  W.  Taylor. 
L.  L.  Rice. 
R.  B.  Dennis. 

E.  S.  Hamlin, 
J.  A.  Briggs, 
G.  Bradburn, 
J.  C.  Vaughn. 
J.  A.  Giddings, 
W.  C.  Howells. 
H.  C.  Gray. 
E.  O.  Howard. 
B.  Chapman. 


LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PRESS. 


319 


1848-54.     Ravenna  . 
1848-49.     Columbus 


1848-50. 

Elyria  .     . 

1848-50. 

Toledo     . 

1848-49. 

Sandusky 

1849-54. 

Chardon  . 

1850. 

Medina     . 

1851-53. 

Cleveland 

1852-54. 

Elyria  . 

1852-54. 

Wellington 

1853-54. 

Columbus 

1853-54. 

Youngstown 

1853. 

Wilmington 

1853. 

Greenfield 

1853. 

West  Unity 

Ohio  Star 

Ohio  Standard      .     .     .     . 

(Revived  in    1850-51,   and 

edited  by  I.  Garrard.) 

Courier 

Republican 

Daily  Mirror. 

Free  Democrat 

Free  Democrat. 

Commercial 

Independent  Democrat    .     . 

Journal   

Columbian 

Mahoning  Free  Democrat  . 
Herald  of  Freedom  .  .  . 
True  Republican  .... 
Williams  Democrat  . 


L.  W.  Hall. 
E.  S.  Hamlin, 


J.  Cotton. 
C.  R.  Miller. 

J.  F.  Asper. 

H.  M.  Addison. 
P.  Bliss. 
G.  Brewster. 
L.  L.  Rice. 
M.  Cullotson. 
J.  W.  Chaffin. 
J.  H.  Rothrock. 
W.  A.  Hunter. 


In  addition  to  the  above,  there  were  a  number  of  ephemeral  and  cam- 
paign papers  about  which  little  more  than  the  title  is  known.  Such  were 
the  Cleveland  Agitator,  1840 ;  Columbus  Palladium  of  Liberty,  1844; 
Akron  Free  Soil  Platform,  1848,  and  Free  Democrat,  1849;  Cleveland 
Ohio  State  Tribune,  1848;  Bryan  Spirit  of  the  Age,  1848;  Massillon 
Wilmot  Proviso  and  Freeman's  Herald,  1848.  There  were  also  several 
which,  though  not  party  papers,  were  strongly  Free  Soil  in  tendency, 
such  as  the  New  Lisbon  Aurora,  the  Salem  Homestead  Journal,  and  two 
German  papers,  — the  Cincinnati  Treue  Demokrat,  1848,  and  Der  Unab- 
hdngige,  1853.  The  greatest  number  in  existence  at  any  one  time  was 
probably  during  the  campaign  of  1848,  immediately  after  which,  it  is 
stated,  there  were  six  dailies  and  twenty  weeklies.  Probably  from  first 
to  last  between  forty  and  fifty  anti-slavery  papers  were  published  in  the 
State. 

INDIANA. 

Protectionist A.  Buffum. 

Free  Labor  Advocate      .     .  B.  Stanton. 

Indiana  Freeman  H.  W.  De  Puy. 

Free  Territory  Sentinel .     .  R.  Vaile. 
(Name  changed  to  True  Democrat) 

Tippecanoe  Journal   .     .     .  J.  B.  Seamans. 

Free  Democrat E.  W.  H.  Lewis. 

Free  Soil  Banner  .     .     .     .  L.  Wallace. 

Indiana  Free  Democrat .     .  R.  Vaile. 


1841. 
1842-48. 
1844-47. 
1848-49. 
1850-52. 
1848. 
1848. 
1848. 
1853-54. 

Newport  .     . 
New  Garden 
Indianapolis  . 
Centreville    . 

Lafayette       . 
South  Bend  . 
Independence 
Indianapolis  . 

320 


APPENDIX  B. 


There  were  also  several  papers  of  which  only  the  names  are  known : 
The  Liberty  Her  aid  vi  Union  County ;  the  Jonesboro  Barnburner,  1848  ; 
the  Madison  Free  Soil  Democrat,  1848  ;  the  New  London  Pioneer,  1848  ; 
and  the  Marion  Herald  of  Freedom,  1847.  The  largest  number  at  any 
one  time  was  seven,  in  1848. 


1839-40. 
1842-48. 


Jackson    . 
Ann  Arbor 


MICHIGAN. 

Michigan  Freeman 
Signal  of  Liberty  . 


1848-49.  Battle  Creek 

1848-49.  Ann  Arbor   . 

1849-51.  Detroit     .     . 

1852-54.  Detroit    .     . 


Liberty  Press    .     . 
True  Democrat 
Peninsular  Freeman 

Free  Democrat . 


S.  B.  Treadwell. 
T.  Foster, 
G.  Beckly. 
Erastus  Hussey. 
O.  Arnold. 
R.  McBratney, 
J.  D.  Ligget. 
S.  A.  Baker, 
J.  F.  Conover. 


Other  anti-slavery  papers  of  less  persistence  were  the  Detroit  Times ^ 
1842  ;  the  American  Citizen,  1845  ;  the  Adrian  Free  Soil  Advocate,  the 
Hillsdale  Banner,  and  the  Jackson  Gazette,  all  in  1848. 


1837.          Alton  . 
1838-39.    Lowell 


1840-42. 
1842-54- 

1845- 

1852. 

1848. 

1848. 

1848-50. 

1849. 

1850-54. 

I853-54- 


Lowell 
Chicago 


Chicago   . 

Waukegan 

Rockford 

Waukegan 

Sparta      . 

Galesburg 


ILLINOIS. 

Observer 

Genius  of  Universal  Eman- 
cipation. 

Genius  of  Liberty  .... 

Western  Citizen  .... 
(With  a  daily  edition,  the 
Daily  News;  and  an- 
other, the  Daily  Times.} 

Tribune 

Lake  County  Chronicle  .     . 

Free  Press 

Free  Democrat 

Freeman  (later,  Journal)     . 

Western  Freeman      .     .     . 


E.  P.  Lovejoy. 
B.  Lundy. 

Z.  Eastman. 
Z.  Eastman. 


T,  Stewart. 
A.  B.  Tobey. 
H.  W.  De  Puy. 
N.  W.  Fuller. 
I.  S.  Coulter. 
W.  J.  Lane. 


Other  names  are  those  of  the  Alton  Monitor,  Geneva  Western  Mer- 
cury, Princeton  Bureau  Advocate,  Quincy  Tribune,  and  Peru  Telegraph, 
all  in  1848.  There  was  one  German  paper,  the  Chicago  Staats  Zeitung, 
1848,  and  one  Norwegian,  Frihets  Banneret,  1852.  There  were  prob- 


LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PRESS. 


321 


ably  many  other  ephemeral  Free  Soil  sheets  in  1848  ;  but  their  activity 
was  so  brief  that  they  sank  at  once  into  oblivion,  along  with  the  pledges 
of  the  Illinois  "  Barnburners." 


1844.  Racine 

1844-48.  Waukesha 

1848-54.  Milwaukee 

1848-54.  Racine 

1848-54.  Kenosha  . 

1848.  Janesville 

1848-49.  Norway   . 
1850. 


1848-49.     Elkhorn  . 

I849'    1      Oshkosh  . 
1853.   > 

Janesville 


WISCONSIN. 

Wisconsin  Aegis   . 


American  Freeman 


.  N. 
L. 

.  C. 
C. 
I. 

Free  Democrat S. 

(Continuation  of  the  preceding.) 


Advocate 


Telegraph 


J. 

C. 

C. 

C. 

G. 

E. 


W.  Fuller, 
W.  Hall. 
C.  Sholes, 
C.  Olin, 
Codding. 
M.  Booth. 

C.  Bunner, 
Clement. 
Clement, 
L.  Sholes. 
W.  Crabb. 
Heg. 


Rock  County  Democrat  . 
Nordlyset  (Norwegian)  . 
(This  was  removed  to  Racine 

and  the  name  changed  to 

Demokraten  ;  edited  by   .     K.  Langeland. 
Western  Star   .  G.  Gale. 


True  Democrat 


J.  C.  Densmore. 


Free  Press J.  Baker. 


In  addition  to  these,  there  were  two  German  campaign  papers,  one  in 
Kenosha  in  1852,  the  other,  the  Volksfreund,  edited  by  J.  Bielfeld,  in 
Milwaukee  in  1848  ;  and  two  or  three  other  campaign  papers :  the 
Janesville  Battering  Ram,  1848  ;  and  the  Sheboygan  Falls  Free  Press, 


1848-49. 
1849-50. 
1850-54. 
1853- 


Ft.  Madison 
Mt.  Pleasant 
Mt.  Pleasant 
Davenport  . 


IOWA. 

Iowa  Freeman  .... 
Iowa  Free  Democrat .     . 
Iowa  True  Democrat 
Der  Demokrat  (German) 


A.  St.  Clair. 
D.  M.  Kelsey. 
S.  L.  Howe. 
T.  Gulich. 


It  is  probable  that  there  were  other  Free  Soil  papers  in  1 848,  but  the 
names  of  none  are  known. 

In  the  years  from  1840  to  1848  there  were  about  twenty  Liberty 
papers,  of  which  only  six  lived  long  enough  to  enter  the  Free  Soil  ranks. 


21 


322  APPENDIX  B. 

With  the  Free  Soil  revolt  in  1848  sprang  up  sixty  or  more  anti-slavery 
papers ;  but  in  two  years  the  number  had  fallen  to  fifteen  or  sixteen,  of 
which  six  were  on  the  Western  Reserve.  On  the  eve  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  outbreak,  after  the  Free  Democratic  revival  of  1852-3,  there 
were  thirty-one,  of  which  sixteen  were  in  Ohio,  one  in  Indiana,  one  in 
Michigan,  four  in  Illinois,  seven  in  Wisconsin,  and  two  in  Iowa. 

The  most  noteworthy  of  the  foregoing  papers  may  be  mentioned  in 
particular.  The  Philanthropist,  founded  by  J.  G.  Birney  in  1836,  and 
after  his  departure  from  Cincinnati  in  1838  edited  by  Dr.  Gamaliel 
Bailey  until  1846,  was  during  this  period  one  of  the  leading  anti-slavery 
papers  of  the  country.  Bailey's  business  ability  enabled  him  to  start  a 
daily  edition  under  the  name  of  Cincinnati  Herald,  and  his  success  as 
well  as  his  political  sagacity  led  to  his  selection,  in  1847,  as  the  one  man 
in  the  country  fitted  to  edit  the  Washington  National  Era.  After  his 
departure,  the  Philanthropist  was  edited  by  Stanley  Mathews  and  J.  W. 
Taylor,  and  its  name  was  changed  successively  to  National  Press,  Globe, 
and  Herald  again,  until,  with  the  decay  of  the  Free  Soil  party  in  Cincin- 
nati, it  ceased  to  exist  in  1849.  On  the  Western  Reserve  the  leading 
paper  was  the  Cleveland  daily  True  Democrat,  founded  in  1846  as  a 
radical  anti-slavery  Whig  paper,  and  after  1848  the  strongest  Free  Soil 
organ  in  northern  Ohio.  Edited  by  Hamlin,  Briggs,  Bradburn,  Vaughn, 
and  others,  it  generally  had  a  Whig  bias  quite  as  marked  as  the  Demo- 
cratic prepossessions  of  the  Cincinnati  Herald ;  and  it  was  at  times 
excessively  pugnacious,  especially  under  Vaughn's  management.  The 
Ashtabula  Sentinel  also  deserves  mention.  It  was  edited  for  some  years 
by  a  son  of  Giddings,  and  afterwards  by  W.  C.  Howells,  and  was  in  some 
measure  a  representative  and  organ  of  Giddings.  Its  utterances  were 
always  in  the  line  of  harmony  and  common  sense,  and  served  in  trying 
times  like  those  of  1849,  when  the  True  Democrat  and  Cincinnati 
Herald  were  at  swords'  points,  to  calm  anger  and  to  steady  excited 
heads. 

In  Indiana  the  Free  Territory  Sentinel,  later  the  True  Democrat  of 
Centreville,  and  still  later  the  Free  Democrats!  Indianapolis,  was  edited  by 
Rawson  Vaile.  Although  in  the  most  backward  of  all  the  Northwestern 
States  except  Iowa,  and  constantly  involved  in  bitter  controversy  with 
its  neighbors,  it  managed,  through  the  support  of  Wayne  and  Henry 
Counties,  to  survive  when  the  Michigan  Peninsular  Freeman,  ruined  by 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  fusion,  fell  by  the  wayside. 

Another  paper  which  deserves  special  mention  on  account  of  the  de- 
votion of  its  editor  was  the  Iowa  Freeman,  later  the  True  Democrat  of 


LEADING   THIRD-PARTY  PAPERS.  323 

Mt.  Pleasant,  published  for  years  out  of  the  pocket  of  its  editor,  S.  L. 
Howe,  an  anti-slavery  prophet  crying  in  the  wilderness  of  a  pro-slavery 
State. 

The  leading  paper  west  of  Ohio  was  undoubtedly  the  Western  Citizen, 
published  at  Chicago  by  Zebina  Eastman  from  1842  to  1854.  It  was 
for  many  years  the  central  organ  of  Illinois,  northern  Indiana,  Wisconsin, 
and  Iowa,  until  the  Free  Soil  revolt  standing  practically  alone.  Pub- 
lished under  great  difficulties,  often  at  a  loss  to  its  editor,  it  was  a  power- 
ful agency  in  keeping  up  the  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties  in  the 
Northwest.  Had  Eastman,  besides  being  a  tireless  philanthropist,  pos- 
sessed as  many  of  the  qualities  of  a  statesman  as  did  Birney  or  Bailey, 
he  might  have  made  for  himself  a  position  of  unique  importance  in  the 
northeastern  counties  of  Illinois.  One  of  the  most  interesting  Free  Soil 
papers  in  the  country  was  the  Sparta  Freeman,  later  Journal,  published 
in  Randolph  County,  in  the  very  midst  of  pro-slavery  "  Egypt."  This 
county  and  the  neighboring  one  of  Madison  had  been  largely  settled  by 
Scotch  immigrants  from  Virginia,  who  had  come  north  to  avoid  contact 
with  slavery,  and  who  still  in  1850,  although  separated  by  scores  of  miles 
from  any  sympathizers,  kept  up  a  strong  anti-slavery  feeling. 

In  Wisconsin  the  leading  paper  was  the  American  Freeman,  published 
first  at  Prairie ville  (now  Waukesha),  and  later  removed  to  Milwaukee. 
At  the  time  of  the  Free  Soil  revolt  it  took  the  name  of  Free  Democrat, 
and  had  a  prosperous  career  free  from  the  hardships  of  its  counterparts 
in  Illinois  and  Iowa.  Edited  for  the  greater  part  of  its  course  by  S.  M. 
Booth,  it  was  one  of  the  most  radical  of  the  Western  third-party  papers, 
and  pugnacious  to  a  degeee  unequalled  by  any  other  paper,  except  at 
times  by  the  Cleveland  True  Democrat.  Besides  this,  the  Kenosha 
Telegraph  and  Racine  Advocate,  papers  of  the  stamp  of  the  Painesville 
Telegraph  or  the  Elyria  Independent  Democrat,  lasted  through  the  Free 
Soil  period  and  kept  Free  Soil  feeling  active  in  the  southeastern  counties. 

If  one  may  generalize  on  the  political  anti-slavery  press  of  the  North- 
west, it  was  in  point  of  ability  superior  to  the  regular  party  papers. 
Something  more  than  ordinary  strength  and  courage  was  required  to 
undertake  the  task  of  running  a  third-party  paper,  especially  in  Indiana, 
Iowa,  and  Michigan.  No  higher  devotion  to  a  purely  moral  idea  can  be 
imagined  than  that  of  S.  L.  Howe  of  the  Iowa  True  Democrat,  who 
never  drew  a  profit  from  his  paper,  nor  dreamed  of  so  doing,  during 
seven  weary  years  of  third-party  action.  The  very  nature  of  the  cause 
kept  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  papers  free  from  some  features  that  disfigure 
"  regular "  papers.  In  spite  of  the  denunciations  of  Whigs,  no  valid 


324  APPENDIX  B. 

suspicion  of  venality  could  attach  to  them,  and,  owing  to  the  absence 
of  party  discipline,  they  were  never  under  the  necessity  of  swallowing 
statements  or  of  changing  front  on  political  questions.  The  nearest  ap- 
proach to  such  a  step  was  the  action  of  some  papers  like  the  Wisconsin 
Freeman  and  the  Indiana  Free  Territory  Sentinel  in  1848. 

The  anti-slavery  country  weeklies,  as  compared  with  their  neighbors, 
often  showed  a  refreshing  independence  of  spirit ;  but  their  absorption 
in  one  idea  led  very  often  to  an  honest  bigotry  almost  as  irritating  as  the 
partisan  character  of  the  old  party  press.  There  was  a  strong  tendency 
for  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  papers,  struggling  with  continuous  disappoint-  ' 
ment,  to  become  mere  vehicles  of  condemnation.  After  1847  the 
National  £ra,  under  Dr.  Bailey's  able  editorship,  had  great  influence 
in  humanizing  local  papers,  leading  them,  by  the  introduction  of  local 
notes  and  literary  matter,  to  avoid  too  great  devotion  to  one  topic.  By 
1854  the  Free  Democratic  press  had  a  distinctly  saner,  more  elevated, 
tone  than  heretofore ;  and  in  the  events  that  led  to  the  formation  of  a 
new  party,  it  took,  with  few  exceptions,  an  extremely  well-judged  and 
temperate  attitude.  It  avoided  irritating  controversy  with  the  Whigs, 
was  willing  to  drop  all  past  party  names  and  let  bygones  be  bygones,  and 
stood  ready  to  rejoice  in  the  triumph  of  Anti-Nebraska,  whatever  became 
of  the  Free  Soil  party. 


APPENDIX   C. 
DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  THIRD-PARTY  VOTE  (WITH  MAPS). 

TABLE   OF   TOTAL  VOTES. 
1840-1853. 

The  following  table  shows  the  fluctuations  of  the  third-party  vote  in 
the  Northwestern  States:  — l 


Ohio. 

Indiana. 

Michigan. 

Illinois. 

Wisconsin. 

Iowa. 

1840 

.     .    . 

903 



3iS 

157 





1841 

. 

(2,800) 

599* 

1,214 

527 





1842 

. 

5,405 

(900) 

(1,665) 

009 





1843 

.     .     . 

6,552* 

1,684 

2,775 

i,954* 

152 



1844 

State   . 

8,4U 

p 

.    

1,408* 

450* 



<£ 

Federal 

>  S,050 

2,106 

3,632 

3,570 





1845- 

^=^T 

(8,691) 

1,755* 

(3,363) 



790 

(60) 

1846 

.  .  . 

10,799 

2,278 

2,885 

5>T47 

(215) 



1847 

x.       .       . 

(4,379) 



? 



973 



1848 

State    . 







4,748 

i,T34 



Federal  35,354 

8,100 

10,389 

15,774 

10,418 

1,126 

^49 

.     .    . 

12,811* 

3,018 

23,540 



3,76i 

564 

1850 

-  .     .     . 

13,802 



2,228 

1,073* 



574 

T&Si 

.     .     • 

16,914 







2,904 



1852 

State   . 

22,167 

? 

6,273 

8,809 





Federal 

•51,682 

6,929 

7,237 

9,966 

8,814 

1,604 

{£53 

^  ~~\ 

50,346 

8,000 





21,886 



This  table  of  total  votes  does  not,  however,  tell  the  whole  story ;  for 
within  each  State  the  anti-slavery  vote  was  distributed  among  strong  and 
weak  localities,  and  in  the  Ohio  River  States  there  was  a  distinctly  sec- 
tional arrangement.  The  following  maps  indicate  the  proportional  distri- 
bution of  the  third-party  vote  in  the  three  elections  of  1844,  1848,  and 
1852,  representing  respectively  the  Liberty  party,  the  Free  Soil  revolt,  and 
the  rejuvenated  Free  Democracy. 

1  The  starred  figures  indicate  incomplete  returns ;  those  in  parentheses  show 
contemporary  estimates.  There  are  numerous  varying  figures  found  in  news- 
papers, but  those  above  appear  to  be  the  most  authentic. 


326 


APPENDIX  C. 


'%  5% 
MAP  OF  THE  FREE  SOIL  VOTE  OF  1844. 

[NOTE.]  In  this  and  the  following  maps  the  shading  indicates  the  proportion 
of  the  third-party  vote  to  the  total  vote  in  each  county,  according  to  the  scheme 
of  gradation  shown  above.] 

In  1844  those  regions  that  were  destined  to  be  centres  of  anti-slavery 
action  for  twenty  years,  and  later  to  become  strongholds  of  the  Republican 
party,  had  become  marked.  In  nearly  every  case  the  political  complex- 
ion of  a  county  may  be  accounted  for  by  two  circumstances,  — t{V_the 
ancestry  of  its  settlers  and  by  the  presence  or  the  absence  of  .agitation. 
In  Ohio,  as  the  map  indicates,  the  Western  Reserve  forms  a  well-marked 
district  where  the  New  England  Puritan  blood  of  the  inhabitants  had 
been  fired  by  the  words  of  Weld,  King,  Wade,  Paine,  and  others.  In 
the  southeastern  counties  near  Virginia  were  some  New  England  inhab- 
itants, some  Quakers,  and  many  Southerners  who  had  moved  North  to 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  LIBERTY  VOTE,  1844. 

escape  from  contact  with  slavery.  This  Muskingum  region  was  a  net- 
work of  underground  railway  lines.  In  the  counties  around  Cincinnati 
we  find  another  region  originally  settled  from  New  England,  but  by  1844 
much  overlaid  by  new  elements,  largely.  Sou  them.  This  is  the  section  in 
which  the  influence  of  Birney,  Bailey,  Morris,  and  the  Philanthropist  was 
strong. 

In  Indiana  the  anti-slavery  counties  are  those  in  which  Quakers  lived, 
especially  Randolph,  Wayne,  Union,  and  Henry  counties.  There  were 
New  Englanders  in  the  State,  but  they  were  as  yet  not  waked  up.  The 
map  shows  well  the  weak  and  scattered  nature  of  Indiana  anti-slavery 
sentiment. 

Michigan,  very  largely  settled  from  New  York,  shows  a  feature  which 
characterizes  it  throughout  its  anti-slavery  career,  in  the  very  general  and 
even  distribution  of  its  third-party  vote.  This  in  1844  was  quite  strong, 
nearly  twice  as  strong  proportionately  as  that  of  any  other  Northwestern 
State  ;  but  there  were  no  such  centres  as  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  even  Indi- 
ana possessed. 

Illinois  shows  in  its  northern  counties  the  effect  of  large  immigration 
from  New  York  and  New  England ;  but  it  also  indicates  the  result  of 
vigorous  agitation.  Lovejoy,  Cross,  and  Codding  were  doing  for  Illinois 
what  Birney  had  done  for  Michigan ;  and  in  1844  the  northern  counties 
of  the  State  were  the  strongest  centre  of  third-party  action  in  the  North- 
west, and  perhaps  in  the  country.  Scattered  along  the  western  edge  of 
the  State  are  traces  of  Liberty  votes  in  places  where  New  England  people 
and  Quakers  had  settled,  and  down  in  the  heart  of  "Egypt"  we  find\ 
several  counties  which  give  evidence  of  a  population  composed  of 
Southern  anti-slavery  Scotchmen  from  North  Carolina  and  Virginia.  J 

Wisconsin  (for  which  the  vote  of  1845  is  taken)  is  practically  an 
appendage  of  Illinois.  Its  southeastern  counties  are  contiguous  with 
those  worked  over  by  Lovejoy,  and  are  anti-slavery  for  the  same  reasons^ 

The  vacant  spaces  on  the  map,  indicating  places  where  no  Liberty  votes 
were  cast,  may  be  explained  in  similar  fashion.  Since  a  frontier  is  never 
consciously  philanthropic,  anti  slavery  sentiment  is  not  likely  to  flourish 
there.  Hence  northern  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa  furnished  no 
abolitionists.  For  a  like  reason  the  northwestern  corner  of  Ohio,  which 
had  been  but  recently  opened  to  settlement,  contained  few  inhabitants 
and  no  abolitionists,  although  just  across  the  border  were  Lenawee  and 
Hillsdale  counties,  both  full  of  anti-slavery  men.  Extending  up  into 
Ohio,  in  a  sort  of  irregular  wedge  from  the  Ohio  River,  were  the  Vir- 
ginia Military  Lands.  These,  settled  from  Virginia  and  the  South,  pro- 


328 


APPENDIX  C. 


duced  no  abolitionists  and  remained  hard  ground  for  fugitive  slaves  to 
travel. 

The  southern  halves  of  Indiana  and  Illinois,  the  western  half  of  Wis- 
consin, and  almost  the  whole  of  Iowa  were  settled  from  the  South,  and 
as  the  foregoing  paper  abundantly  shows,  were  entirely  pro-slavery  in  sen- 
timent, except  where  a  few  Quakers  formed  occasional  oases. 


MAP  OF  THE  FREE  SOIL  VOTE  OF  1848. 

The  above  map  shows  the  vote  of  the  Free  Soilers  of  1848,  its  most 
noticeable  difference  from  the  map  of  four  years  before  consisting  in  the 
deepening  and  strengthening  of  the  proportions.  No  county  in  1844 
cast  over  30  per  cent.,  and  only  three,  all  in  Illinois,  over  20  per  cent. 
Now  twenty-five  counties  cast  over  30  per  cent.,  and  as  many  more  20 
per  cent.  In  Ohio  the  Whig  revolt  has  made  the  Western  Reserve  solid 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  FREE  SOIL   VOTE,  1848.          329 

for  the  third  party  and  much  stronger  than  the  rest  of  the  State,  far 
stronger  than  in  1844.  The  Miami  and  Muskingum  regions  have  spread 
out,  and  even  the  Virginia  Military  Lands  are  invaded  by  a  scattering 
Van  Buren  vote,  while  in  Williams  County,  in  the  extreme  northwest,  a 
third-party  vote  appears  where  all  was  blank  four  years  earlier. 

In  Indiana  the  Quaker  counties  in  the  east  are  now  much  reinforced 
by  a  Whig  bolt  of  New  England-born  men  in  the  central  and  northern 
counties,  so  that  the  State  is  no  longer  merely  dotted  with  anti-slavery 
counties,  but  is  crossed  by  a  broad  band. 

Michigan  remains  much  the  same.  There  is  no  alteration  of  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  third-party  vote,  and  the  increase  results  merely  in 
increasing  the  proportion.  Two  counties  cast  over  30  per  cent ,  but  they 
are  not  contiguous,  and  there  is  still  no  centre. 

In  Illinois  the  Democratic  revolt  in  the  northern  counties  swings  this 
section  over  into  the  Free  Soil  ranks,  causing  it  to  outdo  the  Western 
Reserve  and  to  become  the  strongest  anti-slavery  district  in  the  country. 
Down  the  western  side  of  the  State  the  Van  Buren  vote  gains,  and  even 
encroaches  on  "  Egypt's  "  boundaries  ;  but  in  the  main  the  latter  section 
is  intact. 

Wisconsin  follows  Illinois;  and,  since  it  is  encumbered  with  no 
"  Egypt,"  the  new  State  has  the  honor  of  being  the  strongest  Free 
Soil  State  in  the  Northwest.  According  to  the  original  plans  subdividing 
the  Northwestern  Territory,  the  southern  boundary  of  Wisconsin  would 
come  so  far  south  as  to  include  the  two  northern  tiers  of  Illinois  counties. 
Had  such  been  the  case  in  1848,  the  State  might  well  have  gone  for 
Van  Buren,  and  would  certainly  have  had  two  or  three  Free  Soil 
congressional  districts. 

Iowa  now  appears  on  the  scene  with  a  small  Free  Soil  vote,  showing 
the  influence  of  a  contiguity  with  Illinois,  and  separated  from  the 
northern  anti-slavery  counties  of  that  State  and  from  Wisconsin  by  a 
region  occupied  by  persons  who  had  come  up  the  Mississippi,  and  were 
therefore  pro-slavery.  The  counties  of  Iowa  where  Free  Soil  votes  are 
found  contain  both  of  the  anti-slavery  elements,  New  England  men  and 
Quakers. 

The  vote  of  the  Free  Democracy  for  Hale  in  1852  shows  us  a  substra- 
tum of  the  old  Liberty  party,  with  a  few  Free  Soil  relics  left  behind  by 
the  retiring  tide  of  1849-50.  In  Ohio  there  is  less  change  than  in  some 
of  the  other  States ;  for  in  the  main  the  Free  Soil  Whigs  of  the  Western 
Reserve  have  held  firm,  and  we  find  five  counties  casting  a  vote  nearly 
as  heavy  as  that  of  1848.  In  the  Muskingum  region  the  proportion  is  a 


330 


APPENDIX  C. 


MAP   OF  THE   FREE   SOIL  VOTE   OF    1852. 

little  better  than  in  1848,  but  the  Miami  district  has  fallen  off,  and  the 
traces  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  Virginia  Military  Lands  due  to 
Democratic  bolters  have  died  out. 

In  Indiana  the  Quaker  counties  stand  much  as  they  did  before ;  but 
the  New  Englanders  of  the  central  counties,  lacking  the  stubbornness  of 
those  of  the  Western  Reserve,  have  fallen  away. 

Michigan  has  fallen  back  to  almost  precisely  the  situation  of  1844;  but 
Illinois  shows  an  even  worse  drop.  Not  one  of  the  thirteen  counties 
that  cast  over  30  per  cent,  for  Van  Buren  does  the  same  for  Hale,  and  the 
region  which  in  1848  surpassed  the  Western  Reserve  now  is  inferior  to  it. 
The  scattered  invaders  of  "  Egypt "  have  drawn  back,  and  things  are  not 
very  much  better  proportionately  than  they  were  eight  years  before.  The 
paralysis  into  which  the  return  of  the  Chicago  "  Barnburners  "  in  1850 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  FREE  DEMOCRATIC  VOTE.      331 

had  cast  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  State  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
map. 

Wisconsin  loses  ground  since  1848 ;  but  there  are  enough  "  Barn- 
burners" of  sterner  stuff  than  their  Illinois  neighbors  to  keep  three 
counties  with  over  30  per  cent,  for  Hale,  and  to  place  Wisconsin  second 
only  to  the  Western  Reserve. 

In  Iowa  there  is  little  change,  except  that  Clark  County,  thinly  settled 
with  Eastern  men,  gives  Hale  over  20  per  cent. 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  a  further  proof  of  heredity  and  an  addi- 
tional indication  of  the  influence  of  the  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties,  let 
him  turn  to  Scribner's  Statistical  Atlas.  There,  in  the  Presidential  vote 
of  1880,  he  will  find  the  same  counties  Republican  which  in  1844  voted 
for  Birney  and  Morris. 


APPENDIX   D. 

CONSTITUTIONAL   CONVENTIONS  AND    DIRECT  POPULAR 
VOTES   UPON   NEGRO   DISABILITIES. 

1845-1851. 

DURING  the  period  under  consideration  each  of  the  Northwestern 
States  adopted  a  new  constitution  ;  and  in  so  doing  it  inevitably  was  led 
to  take  action  in  regard  to  negro  suffrage  and  negro  rights  in  general. 
Although  this  does  not  come  strictly  under  the  head  of  anti- slavery  party 
politics,  it  offers  too  many  valuable  illustrations  of  local  popular  sentiment 
to  be  dismissed  without  some  consideration. 

IOWA. 

Iowa  was  first  in  the  field  with  a  Constitutional  Convention  in  the  year 
1845-46,  the  proceedings  of  which,  unfortunately,  the  writer  has  been 
unable  to  find.  It  is  not  likely  that  at  that  time  the  question  of  negro 
rights  aroused  much  interest.  There  was  little  active  anti-slavery  senti- 
ment in  the  State ;  there  were  few  anti-slavery  societies,  no  organized 
Liberty  Party,  and  no  anti-slavery  newspapers.  The  only  disability  laid 
on  negroes  by  the  constitution  was  their  exclusion  from  the  suffrage  and 
the  militia,  and  this  provision  seems  to  have  been  adopted  without  any 
submission  to  popular  vote.1 

WISCONSIN. 

Wisconsin  came  next  in  1846.  Here  the  limitation  of  the  suffrage  to 
white  men  was  adopted  in  the  convention  without  much  opposition, 
although  several  anti-slavery  petitions  for  equal  rights  were  received. 
The  friends  of  the  negro,  however,  by  a  vote  of  53  to  46,  succeeded  in 
having  the  question  of  negro  suffrage  submitted  separately  to  the  people.2 

1  See  the  correct  text  of  the  constitution  of  1846  in  Debates  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  the  State  of  Iowa  (Davenport,  1857),  II.,  1067.      Article  12  in  B: 
P.  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  is  wholly  incorrect. 

2  Journal  of  the  Convention  to  form  a  Constitution  for  the  State  of  Wisconsin, 
Madison,  1847. 


WISCONSIN  VOTES  ON  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.         333 

Accordingly  in  March,  1847,  occurred  the  first  referendum  relating  to 
negro  rights  in  the  Northwest,  resulting  in  a  decisive  defeat  of  equal 
suffrage  by  a  vote  of  14,615  to  7,664.  In  the  eastern  counties  the  Ger- 
mans and  Scandinavians  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  and  were  anti- 
negro  ;  and  in  the  western  counties  the  population  had  come  up  the 
Mississippi  River  and  was  therefore  Southern  in  character.  In  the 
central  region,  on  the  other  hand,  settled  by  people  from  New  England 
and  New  York,  eight  counties  gave  favorable  majorities.1 

This  constitution  having  been  rejected  by  the  people,  another  conven- 
tion, meeting  in  1847-48,  at  a  time  when  the  Wilmot  Proviso  excitement 
was  rising,  paid  more  attention  to  the  negroes.  Rufus  King,  editor  of  the 
Milwaukee  Sentinel,  introduced  a  resolution  instructing  the  judiciary  com- 
mittee to  consider  the  advisability  of  having  an  article  in  the  constitution 
prohibiting  all  State  or  local  magistrates  from  rendering  assistance  in 
catching  fugitive  slaves.  Nothing  came  of  this  attempt ;  but  when  it  was 
moved  to  amend  the  article  defining  suffrage  qualifications  by  striking  out 
the  word  "white,"  a  hot  debate  arose,  and  the  motion  was  defeated, 
45-22.  Another  amendment,  to  the  effect  that  the  Legislature  be 
allowed  at  any  time  to  adopt  negro  suffrage,  was  carried,  35-34  ;  but  on 
reconsideration  it  was  struck  out  by  the  change  of  one  vote.  Charges 
of  abolitionism  were  made  and  denied,  and  the  whole  slavery  question 
was  brought  into  the  discussion.  Finally  an  amendment  was  carried, 
37-29,  allowing  the  Legislature  at  any  time  to  submit  the  question  of 
negro  suffrage  to  popular  vote ;  and  in  this  form  white  suffrage  was  in- 
corporated in  the  constitution.2  The  Legislature  did  not  act  on  this 
matter  until  1849,  wnen  it  ordered  another  referendum,  with  the  proviso 
that  "  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  election  "  must  favor  negro 
suffrage  in  other  to  make  an  affirmative  vote  valid.  Singularly  enough, 
this  referendum  aroused  scarcely  any  interest.  Free  Soilers  were  quarrel- 
ling so  violently  with  Old  Line  Democrats  that  no  campaign  on  the  sub- 
ject was  made ;  and  at  the  election  the  vote  on  this  amendment  was 
absurdly  light.  It  stood  as  follows  :  yes,  5,265  ;  no,  4,075  ;  with  no 
returns  from  a  dozen  counties.3  As  the  total  vote  for  Governor  was 
31,727,  the  majority  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage  was  supposed  by  the 
terms  of  the  submission  to  be  insufficient;  but  in  1861  the  Supreme 
Court,  taking  advantage  of  the  ambiguous  wording  of  the  terms,  held 
that  the  vote  had  been  effective. 

1  F.  E.  Baker,  The  Elective  Franchise  in  Wisconsin,  8. 

2  Journal  of  the  Convention  to  form  a  Constitution  for  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  "with 
a  Sketch  of  the  Debates,  Madison,  1848. 

8  Returns  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Madison,  Wisconsin. 


334  APPENDIX  D. 


ILLINOIS. 


Illinois  was  the  next  State  to  adopt  a  new  constitution,  in  May,  1848. 
In  the  convention  the  strong  anti-slavery  men  of  the  northern  counties 
met  the  pro-slavery  delegates  from  "  Egypt,"  and  sharp  contests  ensued, 
ending  in  nearly  every  case  in  the  total  defeat  of  the  friends  of  equal 
rights.  Early  in  the  session  many  petitions  were  handed  in  from  both 
sections,  one  class  demanding  stringent  anti-negro  provisions  of  all 
descriptions,  the  other  calling  for  equal  suffrage  and  equal  rights.  The 
petitions  were  followed  by  resolutions  to  the  same  purport,  most  of  which 
were  defeated.  A  resolution  that  the  Legislature  have  no  power  to  pass 
laws  oppressive  to  men  of  color  was  laid  on  the  table,  92-46 ;  and  a 
motion  to  strike  out  the  word  "  white  "  from  the  constitution  was  defeated, 
137-8.  On  the  other  hand,  a  proviso  that  the  Legislature  should  never 
extend  the  right  of  suffrage  to  colored  persons  was  laid  on  the  table, 
60-91 ;  and  an  article  prohibiting  intermarriage  and  declaring  that  no 
colored  person  should  ever  under  any  pretext  hold  any  office  was 
defeated,  65-64. 

But  though  these  extreme  anti-negro  propositions  were  rejected,  others 
of  great  severity  were  adopted.  White  suffrage  was  taken  as  a  matter  of 
course,  and  no  attempt  was  made  to  have  the  question  submitted  to  the 
people.  In  response  to  numerous  petitions  a  section  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  87  to  56,  directing  the  Legislature  to  pass  laws  prohibiting  the 
immigration  of  colored  persons  ;  and  this  matter  was  submitted  sepa- 
rately to  popular  vote.1  Illinois,  then,  was  the  second  State  to  have  a 
referendum  on  the  subject  of  negro  rights,  not,  as  in  Wisconsin,  on  the 
matter  of  suffrage,  but  on  the  proposal  to  prohibit  immigration  by  consti- 
tutional law.  The  result  was  an  overwhelming  defeat  for  negro  rights  by 
a  vote  of  49,063  to  20,884;  but  although  in  so  great  a  minority,  the 
anti-slavery  men  carried  fourteen  counties  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State.2 

The  Illinois  Legislature  did  not  act  on  the  section  thus  adopted  until 
1853,  when  it  passed  a  law  unequalled  for  the  anti-negro  sentiment 
displayed.  It  punished  by  fine  and  imprisonment  any  person  bringing  a 
slave  into  the  State,  and  fined  every  negro,  bond  or  free,  who  entered  the 
State  fifty  dollars  for  the  first  offence,  one  hundred  dollars  for  the  second, 
and  so  on.  In  default  of  payment  either  by  himself  or  by  his  master, 

1  Journal  of  the  Convention  assembled  at  Springfield,  June  7,  1847,   Springfield, 
1847. 

2  Chicago  Journal,  May  30,  1848. 


NEGRO  EXCLUSION  IN  THE  NORTHWEST.         335 

the  negro  was  to  be  sold  for  his  fines  and  costs,  at  public  auction,  to  the 
person  bidding  the  shortest  term  of  service.  The  prosecutor  or  informer 
was  to  have  one  half  of  the  money,  the  remainder  was  to  be  used  for  the 
deserving  poor.  This  bill  was  vigorously  opposed  by  members  from  the 
northern  counties,  but  it  passed  the  House  without  difficulty.  A  vote 
to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  was  lost,  58-7  ;  and  on  the  final  passage 
the  vote  was  48  to  23.  The  only  success  won  by  the  friends  of  the  negro 
was  the  securing  of  jury  trial,  by  a  vote  of  39  to  26.  In  the  Senate  the 
majority  in  favor  of  the  bill  was  smaller ;  the  vote  on  the  final  passage 
being  13-9.  Mr.  Judd,  Senator  from  Cook  and  Lake  Counties,  repre- 
sented anti-slavery  opinion  very  well  when  he  moved  to  amend  the  title 
to  read,  "  An  Act  to  establish  Slavery  in  this  State."  * 

MICHIGAN. 

Indiana,  Michigan,  and  Ohio  held  constitutional  conventions  in  1850. 
In  the  Michigan  body,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  were  three  Free 
Soil  members,  anti-slavery  sentiment  seems  not  to  have  been  very  strong. 
When  the  article  on  suffrage  was  reported  to  the  convention,  with  negroes 
excluded,  a  motion  was  made  to  strike  out  the  word  "  white."  Some 
debate  resulted,  led  by  Mr.  Leach  in  favor  of  the  negro ;  but,  when  the 
motion  was  put  to  vote,  it  was  lost,  and  no  one  called  for  the  yeas  and 
nays.  Later  the  motion  to  submit  negro  suffrage  to  the  people  was 
carried,  59-21,  and  in  November  the  third  Northwestern  referendum 
took  place.2  It  resulted,  as  had  the  other  two,  in  a  decisive  defeat  of 
equal  suffrage  by  a  vote  of  30,026  to  12,846,  almost  exactly  the  same 
proportions  as  that  in  Illinois.  Complete  returns  are  not  at  hand  ;  but 
the  friends  of  equal  suffrage  seem  not  to  have  carried  a  single  county, 
being  distributed  quite  evenly  over  the  State,  as  the  Liberty  men  and 
Free  Soilers  had  been.3 

INDIANA. 

In  the  Indiana  convention  of  1850-51,  the  opponents  of  negroes 
showed  greater  determination  than  had  been  displayed  in  any  of  the 
preceding  conventions ;  for,  although  there  was  but  one  third-party 
Free  Democrat  in  the  body,  there  was  a  compact  minority  of  anti-slavery 
Whigs  who,  under  the  lead  of  Schuyler  Colfax,  fought  the  pro-slavery 

1  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  (Springfield,  1853),  271,  364,  443-44; 
Journal  of  the  Senate,  47  5-76. 

'2  Report  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  in  the  Convention,  etc.,  Lansing,  1850. 
8  Detroit  Advertiser,  November,  1850. 


336  APPENDIX  D. 

men  inch  by  inch.  The  question  first  to  be  settled  was  that  of  suffrage. 
When  it  was  moved  to  instruct  the  Committee  on  the  Franchise  to  pro- 
vide that  the  people  might  by  a  direct  vote  extend  the  right  of  suffrage, 
an  amendment  to  add  the  words  "  except  to  negroes,  mulattoes,  and 
Indians  "  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  105  to  36.  A  motion  "that  negroes 
vote  at  all  elections  "  was  rejected,  122  to  i,  receiving  only  the  support 
of  the  one  Free  Soiler.  Finally,  when  Colfax  endeavored  to  get  the 
subject  of  negro  suffrage  submitted  separately  to  the  people,  he  was  de- 
feated, 62  to  60. 

Having  carried  this  point,  the  Southern-born  members  of  the  conven- 
tion pushed  forward  the  subject  of  negro  exclusion.  Not  willing  to 
wait  as  their  Illinois  neighbors  had  done  for  legislative  action,  they  deter- 
mined to  incorporate  the  rules  of  exclusion  and  penalties  for  their  in- 
fringement in  the  Constitution  itself.  Accordingly,  a  stringent  article 
was  forced  through  in  spite  of  Whig  resistance.  An  attempt  to  strike  out 
the  clause  at  its  introduction  was  defeated,  76  to  39 ;  a  motion  to  allow 
the  General  Assembly  to  enact  negro  exclusion  whenever  public  interest 
demanded  it,  was  rejected,  81  to  35  ;  and  after  long  debate  and  the 
steady  rejection  of  all  amendments,  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  select 
committee.  The  committee's  report  to  the  convention  passed  the  third 
reading,  94  to  36 ;  amendments  were  rejected  by  the  same  vote ;  and 
the  article  was  adopted  in  substance  as  follows  :  — 

1 .  No  negro  or  mulatto  was  to  come  into  or  settle  in  the  State  after 
the  adoption  of  this  constitution. 

2.  All  contracts  with  such  negro  or  mulatto  were  to  be  void,  and  any 
person  encouraging  such  to  remain  was  to  be  fined  not  over  $500. 

3.  Fines  were  to  be  applied  to  colonization  purposes. 

4.  The  General  Assembly  was  to  pass  laws  to  carry  out  these  pro- 
visions.1 

This  article  was  submitted  separately  to  the  people ;  and  Indiana  in 
the  autumn  of  1851  signalized  itself  by  decreeing  negro  exclusion  by  an 
enormous  majority,  greater  in  fact  than  that  which  the  constitution  itself 
received,  the  vote  standing  108,513  to  20,951.  The  friends  of  the  negro 
carried  only  two  counties,  Randolph  and  La  Grange.2 

OHIO. 

In  Ohio,  the  State  where  anti-slavery  men  might  have  been  expected 
to 'make  a  good  fight,  there  was  surprisingly  little  struggle  in  the  conven- 

1  Report  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  etc.,  Indianapolis,  1850. 

2  Indiana  Statesman,  Sept.  3,  1851. 


NEGRO  RIGHTS  IN  STATE  CONSTITUTIONS.        337 

tion  of  1850-51.  Seven  Free  Soilers  were  members,  if  we  include  Dr. 
Norton  Townshend,  for  the  time  being  a  Democrat.  Among  them  were 
J.  W.  Taylor,  editor  of  the  Cincinnati  Globe,  J.  R.  Swan,  a  Van  Buren 
elector,  and  L.  Swift,  a  Free  Soil  Senator  in  1849.  Some  slight  debate 
arose  early  in  the  session  over  the  introduction  of  anti-slavery  petitions ; 
but  the  main,  and  in  fact  the  only  effort  of  the  Free  Soilers  to  do  any- 
thing in  favor  of  equal  rights  was  made  when  the  article  on  the  franchise 
was  reported,  with  the  restriction  contained  in  the  use  of  the  word 
"  white."  A  motion,  supported  by  Townshend  and  others,  to  strike  out 
this  word  was  lost,  12  to  66.  A  motion  to  allow  the  Legislature  to 
extend  the  right  of  suffrage  was  lost,  n  to  68  ;  and  with  this  action  the 
matter  dropped.  Negro  suffrage  was  not  submitted  separately  to  the 
people ;  and  thus  Ohio,  like  Iowa,  remained  without  any  referendum  or 
plebiscite  on  questions  relating  to  negroes.1 

SUMMARY. 

In  these  constitutions  we  find  clear  evidence  of  the  state  of  popular 
opinion.  Even  the  most  anti-slavery  of  the  Northwestern  States,  Wis- 
consin, acquiesced  in  negro  exclusion  from  the  suffrage,  the  apparent 
majority  in  favor  in  1849  being  only  one-sixth  of  the  total  vote  cast  for 
Governor  at  the  same  election.  Of  the  three  Ohio  River  States  we  find 
Ohio  most  free  from  anti-negro  feeling,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it 
did  not  include  Black  laws  in  its  new  constitution.  In  the  distribution 
of  votes  the  same  facts  are  brought  out  as  are  shown  in  the  Liberty  and 
Free  Soil  elections ;  and  in  the  total  votes  friendly  to  the  negro  —  in 
the  case  of  Indiana  only  much  larger  than  the  Free  Soil  maximum 
figures  —  we  see  how  very  little  expectation  the  third  party  could  have 
had  of  increasing  its  vote  on  anti- slavery  grounds  alone.2  Philanthropy 
could  not  hope,  unaided,  to  build  up  a  party. 

1  Report  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  etc.,  Columbus,  1851. 

2  This  conclusion  is  rendered  more  obvious  by  the  following  table,  in  which  both 
votes  are  shown :  — 


Free  Soil  Vote,  1848. 
Indiana     .     .    .      8,100 
Michigan  .     .     .     10,389 
Illinois      .     .     .     15,774 


Wisconsin 


10,418 


Vote  for  Negro  Privileges. 
20,956  .  .  .  1851 
12,046  .  .  .  1850 
20,884  •  •  •  1848 
(  7,664  .  .  .  1847 
}  5,265  .  .  .  1849 


22 


INDEX. 


"ABOLITIONISM,"  distinguished  from 
"  Anti-Slavery,"  4. 

Adams,  C.  F.,  nominated  for  Vice  Presi- 
dent at  Buffalo,  142. 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  in  struggle  over  anti-slavery 
petitions,  20 ;  censured  by  Ohio  legis- 
lature, 67. 

American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety, formed  1840,  39 ;  warns  anti- 
slavery  men  against  joining  Free  Soil 
movement,  132. 

American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  share  of 
western  men  in  its  formation,  1 1  ;  posi- 
tion regarding  political  action,  34 ;  re- 
jects a  third  party,  36 ;  disruption,  39. 

Annexation  of  Texas.     See  Texas. 

Anti-Abolition  mobs,  16,17;  legislation, 
20-23. 

Anti-Nebraska  movement,  not  treated  in 
detail,  287. 

Anti-Slavery  societies,  first  ones  in  the 
Northwest,  10;  their  spread,  13  ;  aims, 
13;  in  Ohio,  14;  in  Indiana,  14;  in 
Michigan,  14;  in  Illinois,  14;  in  Wis- 
consin, 48  ;  in  Iowa,  48  ;  their  political 
purposes,  19. 

Arnold,  I.  N.,  leader  of  Chicago  Barn- 
burners, 123,  125;  at  Buffalo  Conven- 
tion, 142. 

BAILEY,  Dr.  Gamaliel,  edits  Philanthro- 
pist, 63,  322  ;  favors  W.  H.  Harrison 
for  President  1840,  38;  joins  Liberty 
party,  41 ;  at  Southern  and  Western 
Convention,  88 ;  edits  National  Era, 
90  ;  his  influence,  63,  90, 324  ;  supports 
Chase  for  U.  S.  Senator  1849,  l67>  169; 
defends  Chase  from  critics  in  1851,  241 ; 
his  ability,  316, 


Barnburners  of  New  York,  revolt  from 
Cass,  124;  nominate  Van  Buren,  125; 
at  Buffalo  Convention,  139;  bargain 
with  Liberty  leaders,  140;  their  prom- 
inence and  attitude  repel  Whigs,  147  ; 
influence  of  their  example  upon  the 
Northwest,  178. 

Bebb,  W.,  Governor  of  Ohio,  gains  anti- 
slavery  vote  1846,  91-93;  joins  Re- 
publican party,  295. 

Beckley,  G.,  editor  of  Signal  of  Liberty, 
90,  320;  urges  widening  of  Liberty 
platform,  90,  100. 

Bingham,  K.  S.,  anti-slavery  Democrat  of 
Michigan,  thrown  over  by  his  party, 
206;  nominated  for  Governor  of  Michi- 
gan by  Free  Democrats  1854,  292 ;  by 
Republicans,  294. 

Birney,  James,  son  of  J.  G.  Birney,  in  Ohio 
Liberty  party,  130. 

Birney,  J.  G.,  publishes  Philanthropist,  17  ; 
mobbed,  17  ;  converts  Morris,  24 ;  con- 
verts Chase,  60 ;  urges  non-partisan 
voting,  27  ;  secures  Giddings's  election, 
31,  and  note  ;  nominated  for  President 
1840,  37,  385  in  1841,  52,  53;  in  1843, 
70 ;  candidate  for  Governor  of  Michi- 
gan 1843,  58  5  m  l845,  87  ;  leader  in 
Michigan,  62,  74;  nominated  for  the 
Michigan  Legislature  by  Democrats, 
76 ;  accused  by  Whigs  of  a  bargain 
with  Democrats,  76-82;  see  also  under 
Garland  forgery  ;  repudiates  Whig 
calumnies,  76,  78 ;  his  opinion  of  the 
election  of  1844,  84;  urges  broadening 
the  Liberty  party  platform,  87,  89,  90 ; 
presides  over  Southern  and  Western 
convention  1845,  88  ;  retires  from  poli- 
tics, 94 ;  estimate  of  his  work,  94. 


340 


INDEX. 


Birney,  W.,  son  of  J.  G  Birney,  with 
Ohio  Liberty  party,  60,  73. 

Black  Laws  in  the  Northwest,  7  ;  attacked 
by  Abolitionists,  20  ff.,  67 ;  see  also 
under  Constitutional  Conventions  and 
under  the  separate  States. 

Booth,  S.  MM  leader  of  Liberty  party  in 
Wisconsin,  63  ;  at  Buffalo  Convention, 
142 ;  supports  Free  Soil  ticket,  146 ; 
brings  about  Whig  and  Free  Soil  coali- 
tion in  1851,  234;  at  Free  Democratic 
National  Convention  1852,  248 ;  edits 
American  Freeman  and  Free  Democrat, 

323- 

Briggs,  J.  A.,  anti-slavery  Whig  of  Ohio 
at  Buffalo  Convention,  142  ;  opposes 
Chase  for  Senator  in  Ohio  1849,  l^5> 
1 66;  edits  Tr tie  Democrat,  318. 

Brinckerhoff,  J.,  Anti-Slavery  Democrat, 
107  ;  at  Buffalo  Convention,  142  ,  active 
in  Ohio  campaign  1848,  143;  in  1852, 
251 ;  presides  over  Ohio  Free  Demo- 
cratic Convention  1853,  267. 

Brisbane,  W.  H.,  leader  in  Ohio  Liberty 
party,  60. 

"  Broader  Platform "  for  Liberty  party 
suggested,  90,  100;  not  favored  in  the 
Northwest,  101,  102  ;  leads  to  formation 
of  Liberty  League,  101. 

Brown,  W.  J.,  Wilmot  Proviso  Democrat 
in  1848-49,  adopts  the  compromise  in 
1851,  231 ;  opposes  Julian,  233. 

Buffalo  Free  Soil  Convention,  138-143; 
elements  present,  138;  difficulties,  138; 
organization,  139;  bargains,  139;  plat- 
form, 140 ;  nominations,  141  ;  effect  on 
the  country,  143. 

Buffum,  A.,  agitates  in  Indiana,  14;  op- 
poses a  third  party,  44;  edits  Protec- 
tionist, 64,  319. 

Butler,  B.  F.,  New  York  Barnburner 
influential  at  Buffalo  Convention,  139, 
141. 

CALHOUN,  J.  C..  his  opinions  on  slavery 
opposed  by  Thos.  Morris,  24. 

Campbell,  L.  D.,  bolts  Taylor's  nomina- 
tion in  1848,  129 ;  a  Whig  in  1853,  269. 

Cass,  Lewis,  his  influence  in  Michigan, 
107  ;  distrusted  by  Northwestern  Anti- 
Slavery  Democrats,  121-123  >  relation  to 
internal  improvements,  123 ;  nominated 
for  President,  124;  struggles  with  anti- 


slavery  opposition  in  his  own  party  in 
Michigan,  198  ff. ;  controls  State  ma- 
chine, 200,  201 ;  fails  to  secure  election 
of  Compromise  Democrats  in  1850,  207. 

Chase,  S.  P.,  a  Whig  in  1840,  40;  con- 
verted by  Birney,  joins  Liberty  party, 
60 ;  writes  resolution  for  National  Lib- 
erty Convention  1843,  7°>  writes  ad- 
dress in  behalf  of  Birney  1844,  78 ;  his 
opinion  of  Thomas  Morris,  86 ;  writes 
address  of  Southern  and  Western  Con- 
vention, 88 ;  begins  to  consider  anti- 
slavery  equivalent  to  Democratic,  88, 
99,  100 ;  wishes  Liberty  party  to  join 
Wilmot  Proviso  movement,  in  ;  urges 
delay  in  nominating,  119;  joins  Free 
Territory  meetings,  129,  133;  at  Buf- 
falo Convention  makes  a  "  deal "  with 
Barnburners,  139;  writes  the  Free  Soil 
platform,  140 ;  withholds  McLean's 
name  as  candidate,  141  ;  his  influence 
very  great,  142 ;  he  ascribes  the  low 
Free  Soil  vote  in  Ohio  to  Corwin's  in- 
fluence, 155;  elected  to  United  States 
Senate,  164-175 ;  urges  Free  Soilers  to 
aid  Democrats  in  Hamilton  County 
case  1849,  J6s;  accused  of  ambition  by 
the  Whigs,  166,  167;  defended  by  his 
friends,  168  ;  contest  with  Giddings  for 
Senatorship,  169,  170;  asks  Giddings  to 
withdraw,  170;  elected  by  Democratic 
votes,  171;  his  apparent  self-seeking, 
174;  urges  Free  Soilers  to  fuse  with 
Democrats,  180,  185,  236;  opposes 
union  of  Free  Soilers  with  Whigs  to 
elect  B.  F.  Wade,  236 ;  joins  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  239;  criticised  by  Free 
Democrats,  240-243  ;  refuses  to  vote  for 
Pierce,  249;  not  a  candidate  for  Free 
Democratic  nomination  in  1852,  249; 
weakness  of  his  position,  251,  252;  still 
considers  himself  a  Democrat  in  1853, 
274 ;  writes  the  address  of  the  Inde- 
pendent Democrats  1854,  287. 

Chicago  a  centre  of  anti-slavery  activity, 

95.  323,  327- 

Christian  anti-slavery  conventions  in  the 
Northwest,  229. 

Christiancy,  I.  P.,  at  Buffalo  Convention, 
142  ;  elected  to  Michigan  Senate  by  all 
three  parties,  203  ;  persuades  Michigan 
Free  Soilers  to  join  Republican  move- 
ment 1854,  293. 


BIRNEY—FREE  LABOR. 


341 


Churches,  anti-slavery  controversy  in,  16. 

Clark,  Rev.  G.  W.f  at  Northwestern 
Liberty  convention,  90;  in  Wisconsin, 
98. 

Clarke,  H.  K.,  Free  Soil  leader  in  Michi- 
gan, 144,  311. 

Clay,  Henry,  debate  with  Thomas  Morris, 
25;  attacked  by  Abolitionists  in  1844, 
71,72. 

Cleveland  True  Democrat,  leading  Free 
Soil  journal  on  Western  Reserve,  322. 

Codding,  I.,  anti-slavery  leader  in  Illinois, 
63,  74,  196;  in  Wisconsin,  98;  at  Buf- 
falo Convention,  142;  tries  to  form 
Republican  party  in  Illinois,  295. 

Collins,  F.,  Liberty  leader  in  Illinois,  57, 

63- 

Collins,  J.  H.,  Free  Soil  leader  in  Illinois, 
196,  230. 

Colonizationist,  activity  in  Northwest, 
7  ;  attacked  by  Abolitionists,  10. 

Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as- 
serted to  be  an  anti-slavery  document, 
89,  98  ;  not  a  popular  view  in  the  North- 
west, 99. 

Corwin,  T.,  works  against  Free  Soilers  in 
Ohio,  153,  155. 

Cravens,  J.  H.,  anti-slavery  Whig  in  Indi- 
ana, no,  in,  116;  supported  by  Lib- 
erty men,  112;  at  Buffalo  Convention, 
142  ;  candidate  for  Governor,  188. 

Crocker,  Hans,  Wisconsin  Free  Soil 
Democrat,  142. 

Cross,  J.,  describes  effect  of  "Log 
Cabin  "  campaign  on  Abolitionists,  52  ; 
agitates  in  Illinois,  95. 


DEMING,  E.,  Liberty  leader  in  Indiana, 
57,  61. 

Democracy,  its  identity  with  anti-slavery 
asserted,  88,  99,  100. 

Democratic  abuse  of  Liberty  party,  119; 
of  Free  Soil  party,  148. 

Democratic  party  favors  Texas  annexa- 
tion, 70  ;  considered  the  natural  ally  of 
the  Free  Soil  party,  222,  306. 

Democratic  sentiment  in  favor  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  109,  121  ;  against  it, 
122;  objections  to  Cass,  122,  123. 

De  Puy,  H.  W.,  editor  of  Indiana  Free- 
man, 116,  31 9  j  of  Rockford  Free  Press, 
320. 


Detroit  Advertiser  implicated  in  Garland 
forgery,  83 ;  works  to  bring  about 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  fusion,  158,  201, 
202. 

Dresser,  A.,  assaulted  by  slaveholders  in 
Kentucky,  16. 

Durkee,  C.,  anti-slavery  leader  in  Wis- 
consin, 63,  98  ;  favors  union  of  Liberty 
party  with  Free  Soilers,  136 ;  elected 
to  Congress  by  Free  Soilers,  158;  re- 
elected  by  Whig  votes,  214,  215;  aids  in 
forming  Whig  and  Free  Soil  alliance 
in  1851,  235;  defeated  for  Congress  in 
1892,  259;  estimate  of  his  leadership, 

3°4- 
Dyer,  C.  V.,  Liberty  leader  in  Illinois, 

63,  135- 

EASTMAN,  Z.,  anti-slavery  leader  in  Illi- 
nois, 62,  230;  edits  Western  Citizen,  64, 

323- 

Eells,  Dr.  R.,  anti-slavery  leader  in  Illi- 
nois, 63,  95. 

"Egypt,"  in  Illinois,  settlement,  3;  sym- 
pathizes with  slaveholders,  58,  327 ; 
slight  traces  of  anti-slavery  sentiment 
in  it,  97,  265,  327. 

Ells,  G.  W.,  anti-slavery  Democrat  in 
Ohio,  60. 

Ellsworth,  H.  L.,  Free  Soiler  in  Indiana, 
177 ;  at  Northwest  Ordinance  con- 
vention, 177,  189. 

Emancipation,  early  societies  in  favor  of 
it  in  the  Northwest,  6,  10. 

Emancipator,  organ  of  the  American  and 
Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society,  39,  83. 

FARWELL,  L.  J.,  anti-slavery  Whig  in 
Wisconsin,  elected  Governor  by  Whig 
and  Free  Soil  fusion,  234-235 ;  refuses 
to  run  for  re-election  in  1853,  279-280. 

Faults  of  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  leaders, 
306. 

Fitch,  J.  S.,  Liberty  leader  in  Michigan, 

52- 

Ford,  S.,  Whig  candidate,  elected  Gover- 
nor of  Ohio  by  Free  Soil  votes,  152. 

Foster,  S.  S.,  at  Liberty-party  National 
Convention  1843,  70;  on  Western  Re- 
serve, 102,  113. 

Free  Labor  Advocate,  organ  of  Indiana 
Liberty  party,  56,  64,  117. 


342 


INDEX. 


Free  Soil  party,  formed  at  Buffalo,  140- 
142 ;  its  organization,  143,  144 ;  cam- 
paign and  vote  1848,  153,  154 ;  in  State 
elections,  157;  holds  balance  of  power 
in  each  State,  159;  possibly  damaged 
by  Van  Buren's  candidacy,  160;  de- 
clares itself  permanent  in  1849,  l61  J 
adopts  policy  of  coalition,  162  ;  causes 
for  this  policy,  220;  its  principles 
claimed  by  other  parties,  149,  157,  220; 
reasons  for  Democratic  coalition,  222 ; 
for  Whig  coalition,  223;  good  and  evil 
results  of  coalition,  224,  225 ;  not  killed 
by  the  compromise  of  1850,  224-226; 
revived  at  Cleveland  Convention  1851, 
242  ;  ceases  to  call  itself  Free  Soil  and 
uses  the  name  Free  Democratic,  244; 
reorganization,  245 ;  national  conven- 
tion at  Pittsburg,  246-249;  leading  men, 
248;  nominates  J.  P.  Hale,  248,  249; 
character  of  convention,  250 ;  in  cam- 
paign of  1892,  256,  257 ;  vote,  257  ;  not 
discouraged,  257,  258;  not  likely  to 
have  supplanted  Whigs,  285 ;  dissolves 
in  1854,  287  ;  its  effect  on  old  parties, 
299  ;  its  gains  and  losses  from  coalition, 
300-301 ;  its  platform  unsuitable  for 
State  politics,  302. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  opposed  in  the 
Northwest,  227,  228. 


GARLAND,  forgery  in  the  campaign  of 
1844,  78  ff. 

Garrison,  W.  L.,  starts  abolition  move- 
ment, 9  ;  adopts  non-resistance,  33. 

Garrisonians,  undue  prominence  assigned, 
5;  controversy  with  political  Abolition- 
ists, 34-39;  condemned  by  Michigan 
Liberty  party,  55 ;  by  Illinois  Liberty 
Men,  103  ;  confused  with  Liberty  party, 
103  ;  their  activity  and  devotion  in  the 
Northwest,  102. 

Geauga  County,  Ohio,  first  independent 
anti-slavery  nomination  in  the  North- 
west 32,  35 ;  last  Free  Soil  ticket  in 
Ohio,  290. 

Giddings,  J.  R.,  converted  to  anti-slavery 
by  T.  D.  Weld,  23;  his  action  in  Con- 
gress, 23  ;  said  to  have  been  elected  by 
Birney's  influence,  34;  does  not  join 
Liberty  party,  40,  112;  censured  by 
Congress,  112;  correspondence  with 


Chase,  112  ;  attacks  Birney  in  1844,  78, 
113;  opposed  by  Liberty  Men  of  his 
district,  92,  112,  115;  threatens  to  bolt 
Taylor's  nomination,  108  ;  his  popular- 
ity on  the  Western  Reserve,  114,  151; 
joins  Free  Soil  movement,  129;  prom- 
inent at  Buffalo  Convention,  142;  his 
opinion  on  Free^  Soil  vote  in  Ohio,  147, 
155;  candidate  for  senator,  169-172; 
urges  Free  Soilers  to  combine  on  Chase, 
169;  his  modesty,  170;  defeated  by 
Whig  enemies,  170;  deprecates  Free 
Soil  attacks  on  Chase,  Townshend,  and 
Morse,  176,  177;  objects  to  Chase's 
policy  in  insisting  on  Hamilton  County 
case  in  1849,  181  ;  candidate  for  Senate 
in  1851,  236;  at  Free  Democratic  Na- 
tional Convention,  247,  248;  defends 
Chase  from  Free  Soil  attacks,  252 ;  re- 
ceives a  complimentary  dinner  1852, 
253 ;  elected  to  Congress  in  1852,  258, 
259;  favors  Whig  and  Free  Soil  union, 
1853,  271. 

Goodell,  W.,  an  "  Abolitionist  "  yet  not  a 
Garrisonian,  5 ;  leader  of  Liberty  party, 
53;  considers  slavery  unconstitutional, 
98;  joins  Liberty  League,  101. 

Greeley,  H.,  angry  with  Liberty  party  in 
1844-45,  8 1 ;  letter  to  Southern  and 
Western  Convention,  88  ;  attacks  Free 
Soilers  in  1848,  153 ;  urges  Free  Demo- 
cratic and  Whig  coalition  on  the  Maine 
Law,  271,  280. 

Green,  B.,  early  Abolitionist  in  Ohio,  9, 10 ; 
at  formation  of  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  n. 

Grimes,  J.  W.,  anti-Nebraska  Whig, 
elected  Governor  of  Iowa  with  Free 
Democratic  help,  297. 

Guthrie,  A.  A.,  Ohio  Liberty  leader  at 
Buffalo  Convention,  142. 


HALE,  J.  P.,  influence  of  his  example  in 
the  Northwest,  115;  nominated  for 
President  by  the  Liberty  party  1847, 
120;  personal  popularity  in  1848,  138; 
chances  for  nomination  at  Buffalo  Con- 
vention, 142 ;  withdraws  from  Liberty 
nomination,  143  ;  nominated  for  Presi- 
dent by  Free  Democratic  Convention 
1852,  248  ;  stumps  the  Northwest, 
255. 


FREE  SOIL  — INDIANA. 


343 


Hallock,  H.,  Michigan  Liberty  man,  62, 

97- 

Hamilton  County  election  case  in  Ohio 
Legislature,  163-167,  182;  disrupts 
Ohio  Free  Soil  Party,  179. 

Hamlin,  E.  S.,  anti-slavery  Whig  at 
Northwestern  Liberty  Convention, 
89;  edits  Cleveland  True  Democrat, 
1 08 ;  receives  Liberty  votes,  in  ;  at 
Buffalo  Convention,  142;  aids  Chase 
and  the  Democrats  in  the  Ohio  Legis- 
lature 1849,  165-171 ;  elected  to  Board 
of  Public  Works  by  Democrats,  252. 

Harding,  S.  S.,  Liberty  leader  in  Indiana, 
57,  61 ;  leads  Liberty  men  to  support 
Cravens,  a  Whig,  112;  at  Ohio  Free 
Territory  Convention,  130:  joins  Free 
Soil  movement,  134;  at  Buffalo  Con- 
vention, 142;  loath  to  support  Van 
Buren,  140;  at  Free  Democratic  Na- 
tional Convention  1852, 148  ;  joins  anti- 
Nebraska  movement,  290;  estimate  of 
his  work,  303. 

Hastings,  S.  D.,  Liberty  leader  in  Wiscon- 
sin, 63 ;  in  Wisconsin  Legislature,  209. 

Hoadly,  G.,  opposes  radical  resolutions  at 
Ohio  Free  Soil  Convention  1850,  184. 

Holley,  M.,  advocates  a  third  party  in 
I^39»33~35»  proposes  to  nominate  for 
President  at  Cleveland  1839,  36;  nomi- 
nates Birney,  37. 

Holmes,  S.  M.,  Liberty  leader  in  Michi- 
gan, 62 ;  advocates  Free  Soil  arid  Whig 
fusion  in  1848,  158. 

Holton,  E.  D.,  Liberty  leader  in  Wiscon- 
sin, 87;  at  Buffalo  Convention,  142; 
supported  for  Governor  by  Whigs  and 
Free  Democrats  in  18^3,  280,  281. 

Howard,  J.  M.,  leader  of  Michigan  Whigs 
in  attacking  Birney,  76,  81  ;  not  in- 
volved in  the  Garland  forgery,  83 ; 
prevents  Whig  and  Free  Soil  fusion  in 
1849,  200;  advocates  a  new  party  1854, 
291 ;  his  share  in  forming  Republican 
party,  294. 

Howe,  S.  L.,  anti-slavery  leader  in  Iowa, 
218 ;  publishes  True  Democrat,  266, 
322,  323 ;  at  Free  Democratic  National 
Convention  1892,  248. 

Hoyne,  T.,  Chicago  Free  Soil  Democrat, 
123,  125. 

Hull,  M.  R.,  Liberty  leader  in  Indiana, 
attacks  Whigs,  62. 


Hutchins,  J.,  Liberty  leader  on  Western 
Reserve,  61 ;  joint  debate  with  Gid- 
dings,  113. 

ILLINOIS,  anti-slavery  societies  in,  14; 
State  Anti-slavery  Society  on  voting, 
33,  39;  refuses  to  join  third  party,  42. 

Illinois  Constitutional  Convention,  on 
negro  privileges,  334. 

Illinois  Democrats  Southern  in  sympa- 
thies, 122  ;  Free  Soil  sentiment  among. 
122,  123. 

Illinois  Pree  Soil  party  formed,  131 ; 
organized,  144;  campaign  and  vote  in 
1848,  156;  its  great  opportunities  1849, 
193;  difficulties,  194, 195;  coalesces  with 
Democrats  1850,  196;  abandoned  by 
old  Liberty  Men,  196;  collapses,  197; 
revives  in  1851,  230,  radical  character, 
230,  246;  in  campaign  of  1852,  254; 
organization  in  1853,  265 ;  condemns 
negro  exclusion  act,  265 ;  cases  of 
local  Whig  and  Free  Democratic 
fusion,  266 ;  joins  anti-Nebraska  move- 
ment, 295 ;  attempts  to  form  Republi- 
can party,  295. 

Illinois  Legislature  on  anti-slavery,  20; 
pro-Southern  resolutions,  68 ;  passes 
negro  exclusion  act  1853,  334,  335. 

Illinois  Liberty  party,  formed  1840,  42; 
significance  of  vote,  47  ;  organized,  52  ; 
election  of  1841,  55 ;  campaign  of  1842, 
57  :  of  1843,  58  ;  leaders,  62  ;  organiza- 
tion, 74 ;  relapse  in  1845,  ^7  >  success- 
ful campaign  of  1846,95;  conventions 
in  1847,  97  >  partly  accepts  new  anti- 
slavery  theories,  99,  101 ;  campaign  in 
1848,  135;  its  strength  in  Northeast 
counties,  58,  62,  63,  74,  95,  327,  328. 

Illinois  popular  vote  on  negro  exclusion, 

334- 

Illinois  Republican  party  formed  in  two 
districts,  294. 

Illinois  third-party  leaders,  303,  press, 
320;  vote,  327-31. 

Illinois  Whigs  favor  Free  Soil  in  1849, 
194;  in  1850,  196;  tired  of  the  com- 
promise in  1853,  283,  284  ;  refuse  to  join 
Republican  movement,  294. 

Indiana  anti-Nebraska  campaign  1854, 
290,  291. 

Indiana  anti-slavery  sentiment,  its  weak- 
ness, 44,  56,  303,  327-330. 


344 


INDEX. 


Indiana  anti-slavery  societies,  14 ;  State 
Anti-slavery  Society  favors  political  in- 
dependence, 30;  rejects  a  third  party 
1840,  43. 

Indiana  Constitutional  Convention  on 
negro  rights,  191-193,  335;  its  action 
approved  by  Ohio  Democrats,  237. 

Indiana  Democrats  for  Free  Soil  in 
1849, 187-189;  abandon  it,  230;  support 
Julian,  190,  233. 

Indiana  P>ee  Soil  party,  organized,  130, 
144;  vote  in  1848,  156;  resolves  to 
continue  1849,  I9°i  coalitions,  191;  de- 
cay in  1850,  192,  193;  revived  in  1851, 
227 ;  conventions,  229-30,  246 ;  cam- 
paign of  1852,  253,  254 ;  activity  in  1853, 
263,  264 ;  joins  the  and- Nebraska  move- 
ment, 290;  small  part  played,  291. 

Indiana  Legislature  on  anti-slavery,  20. 

Indiana  Liberty  party,  formed,  51 ;  State 
conventions,  52  ;  votes  and  campaigns 
1841-43,  55,  56,  57  ;  leaders,  61 ;  or- 
ganization 1844,  73  ;  campaign  of  1845, 
86;  of  1846,  93;  indifferent  to  new 
anti-slavery  doctrines,  99;  tendency  to 
fuse  with  old  parties,  111-112;  joins 
Whigs  in  Congressional  campaign  1847, 
116;  joins  Free  Soil  movement,  134. 

Indiana  popular  vote  on  negro  exclusion, 

336. 
Indiana  third  party  press,  319;  vote,  327- 

331. 

Indiana  Whigs,  appeal  for  Liberty  votes, 
7T>  73.  74»  IJ6;  circulate  Garland's 
forgery,  78;  attack  Free  Soil  party, 
149,  150,  157;  assert  Free  Soil  princi- 
ples in  1849,  187-189;  continue  to  do 
so  in  1850,  232  ;  oppose  Julian,  233. 

Iowa  anti-Nebraska  movement,  297. 

Iowa  anti-slavery  sentiment,  its  feeble- 
ness, 75  ;  agitation,  87  ;  organization, 

96,  97»  137- 

Iowa  Constitutional  Convention  on 
negro  disabilities,  332. 

Iowa  Democrats  pro-slavery,  216;  local 
coalitions  with  Free  Soilers,  216;  their 
contemptuous  attitude  toward  Free 
Soilers,  232. 

Iowa  Free  Soil  party,  formed,  131 ;  organ- 
ized, 145;  vote  in  1848,  157;  desires 
Whig  coalition,  217  ;  failure  of  coalition, 
217;  campaign  of  1850,  218,  219;  char- 
acter of  the  party,  219;  organization  in 


1853,  266;  joins  anti-Nebraska  move- 
ment, 297  ;  its  weakness,  304 ;  courage 
of  leaders,  304. 

Iowa  Liberty  party,  formed,  137;  joins 
Free  Soil  movement,  137. 

Iowa  third  party  press,  321 ;  vote,  329- 

lowa  Whigs,  their  anti-slavery  tendency, 
216;  coalesce  with  Free  Soilers,  217; 
reject  Free  Soil  fusion  in  1850,  218; 
ask  Free  Democratic  aid  in  1854,  297. 

JACKSON  County,  Michigan,  nominates 
anti-slavery  third  party  candidates  in 

1839,  32. 

Julian,  G.  W.,  at  Buffalo  Convention,  142 ; 
elected  to  Congress  in  1849,  I9°»  I9I  > 
defeated  in  1851  by  Democratic  dis- 
affection, 233,  234 ;  nominated  for  Vice 
President  in  1852,  248 ;  active  in  organ- 
izing 1853,  269;  joins  anti-Nebraska 
movement  with  hesitation,  290;  only 
real  leader  in  Indiana,  303. 

KELLY,  Abby,  at  Liberty  National  Con- 
vention 1843,  7°>  labors  on  Western 
Reserve,  102,  113. 

King,  Leicester,  opposes  Black  Laws  in 
Ohio  Legislature,  21 ;  his  influence  on 
anti-slavery  sentiment,  23 ;  a  Whig  in 

1840,  40 ;  nominated  for  Governor  by 
Liberty  party,  56 ;  a  leader  of  the  party, 
61  ;    presides    over    Liberty   National 
Convention  1843,  7°»  has  joint  debate 
with  J.  R.  Giddings   1844,  IT3>   nomi- 
nated for   Vice   President   by   Liberty 
party,  1 20 ;  withdraws  from  nomination 
1848,  143- 

LANE  SEMINARY,  formation  of  anti-slav- 
ery society  in,  n  ;  society  suppressed 
and  students  secede,  12;  influence  of 
the  incident,  12;  action  of  the  former 
students,  12,  16. 

Leavitt,  Joshua,  leader  of  New  York 
anti-slavery  men,  53;  at  Liberty  Na- 
tional Convention  1842,  119;  joins 
Chase  in  bargain  with  Barnburners  at 
Buffalo  Convention,  139;  presents  Hale 
as  candidate,  141 ;  moves  to  make  Van 
Buren's  nomination  unanimous,  142; 
accused  of  treachery  by  Abolitionists, 
147. 


INDIANA — MCLEAN. 


345 


Lemoyne,  F.  J.,  declines  Abolitionist 
nomination,  37  ;  presides  at  Cleveland 
Anti-Slavery  Convention  1851,  242; 
objects  to  name  Free  Democracy,  247. 

Lewis,  Samuel,  a  Whig  in  1840,  40  ;  joins 
Liberty  party,  60 ;  at  Liberty  National 
Convention  1843,  70 ;  at  Southern  and 
Western  Convention,  88 ;  campaign  for 
Governor  of  Ohio,  91,  92 ;  presides 
at  Liberty  National  Convention  of 
1843,  IT9>  at  Buffalo  Convention,  142  ; 
declines  Free  Soil  nomination  for 
Governor  1850,  183 ;  nominated  for 
Governor  1851,  238;  criticises  Chase, 
240,  243  ;  issues  call  for  National  Free 
Democratic  Convention,  246 ;  his  hesi- 
tation over  the  name  of  the  party,  247  ; 
defeated  for  Vice-Presidential  nomina- 
tion by  the  Conservative  element,  248  ; 
speaks  in  Indiana,  264;  nominated  for 
Governor  of  Ohio  1853,  267  ;  his  vigor- 
ous campaign,  268,  274;  remarkable 
success,  274;  his  valedictory,  276,  277; 
death  and  character,  289,  290. 

Liberator,  influence  in  the  Northwest,  9. 

Liberty  League  founded,  101. 

Liberty  party,  founded  at  Albany  1840, 
38 ;  first  National  Convention  in  1841, 
53  ;  strength  lies  at  first  in  the  East,  53  ; 
nominates  Birney  and  Morris  and  plans 
organization,  53  ;  its  policy,  54 ;  fails  to 
draw  the  anti-slavery  vote,  59;  its 
leaders  in  the  Northwest,  60-62  ;  press, 
63 ;  programme  and  methods,  64-66 ;  its 
difficulties,  65,  66,  68;  second  National 
Convention  1843,  69  ;  increased  impor- 
tance of  Northwestern  men,  70;  holds 
the  balance  of  power,  71  ;  attacked  by 
Whigs,  71;  desertions  in  1844,  75; 
damaged  by  Garland  forgery,  79 ;  prob- 
ably secures  Clay's  defeat,  79,  80 ;  re- 
action against  it  as  a  result,  80-85  > 
defence  of  its  action,  83,  84  ;  discour. 
agement  after  1844,  89;  efforts  to  alter 
its  character,  90  ;  status  in  1846,  97  and 
note  ;  decay  in  1847,  9^ ;  new  factions, 
98,  99;  relations  to  Garrisonians,  102, 
103 ;  popular  indifference  to  it,  103 ; 
factions  in  1847,  IO4>  isolation,  104; 
controversy  over  date  of  National 
Convention,  117  ;  Third  National 
Convention  1847,  118-120;  struggle 
over  platform,  119;  nominates  Hale, 


120;  hesitates  to  join  Free  Soil  move- 
ment, 132;  its  members  at  Buffalo  do 
not  act  together,  141  ;  dissatisfaction 
with  Van  Buren's  nomination,  145. 

Lincoln,  A.,  refuses  to  join  Republican 
movement,  1854,  295. 

Littlejohn,  F.  J.,  anti-slavery  Democrat 
of  Michigan,  refuses  to  support  Cass  in 
1848,  122;  joins  Free  Soil  party,  144; 
nominated  for  Governor  of  Michigan 
by  Free  Soilers,  200;  accepts  Whig 
nomination,  202. 

Lovejoy,  E.  P.,  anti-slavery  editor,  mur- 
dered in  Illinois,  17. 

Lovejoy,  Owen,  leader  of  Illinois  Aboli- 
tionists, 62  ;  at  Liberty  National  Con- 
vention, 1843,  70  ;  his  work  in  Illinois, 
74 ;  at  Southern  and  Western  Conven- 
tion, 1845,  && »  successful  campaign  for 
Congress  in  Illinois,  95,  96 ;  at  Liberty 
National  Convention,  1847,  120;  can- 
didate for  Congress  in  1848,  135;  at 
Buffalo  Convention,  142 ;  refuses  to 
coalesce  with  Democrats  in  1850,  196; 
at  Free  Democratic  National  Conven- 
tion, 1852,  248  ;  tries  to  form  Republi- 
can party,  1854,  295. 

Log  Cabin  and  Hard  Cider  campaign,  38; 
drowns  out  interest  in  abolitionism,  40, 
44,  45- 

Lundy,  B.,  publishes  Genius  of  Universal 
Emancipation  in  Illinois,  6. 

Ly  Brand,  J.,  Abolitionist  leader  in  Wis- 
consin, 63. 

MAHAN,  Rev.  A.,  early  Western  Aboli- 
tionist, 9;  President  of  Oberlin  College, 
12. 

Mahan,  J.  B.,  delivered  to  Kentucky  by 
Gov.  Vance  of  Ohio  for  aiding  fugitive 
slaves,  30. 

Maine  Law  favored  by  Free  Democrats 
of  Indiana  in  1852,  229 ;  an  issue  in 
Ohio,  1853,  271,  273;  in  Wisconsin, 
280,  281. 

Mathews,  S.,  edits  Cincinnati  Herald,  129, 
318,  327  ;  joins  Whigs  in  planning  Free 
Soil  revolt,  129  ;  elected  Clerk  of  Ohio 
House  of  Representatives  by  Demo- 
crats, 166;  Chase's  confidant,  167  ;  joins 
Democratic  party,  291. 

McLean,  JM  favored  for  President  by  anti- 
slavery  Whigs,  127, 141 ;  name  withheld 


34^ 


INDEX. 


by  Chase  at  Buffalo  Convention,  141 ; 
refuses  Whig  and  Free  Soil  nomination 
for  senator  in  Ohio,  171. 
McGee,  T.,  President  of  Michigan  Anti- 
Slavery  Society,  condemns  a  third  party 
in  1839,  32 ;  joins  Liberty  party,  1840, 

43>  52- 

Michigan  anti-slavery  societies,  14;  State 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  49. 

Michigan  Constitutional  Convention  on 
negro  privileges,  335. 

Michigan  Democrats  twit  Library  party 
with  inconsistency,  58;  foment  Whig 
and  Liberty  controversy,  74,  86;  sup- 
port Cass  for  Presidency,  122;  favor 
Free  Soil  in  1848, 198,  199 ;  re-elect  Cass 
to  Senate  in  spite  of  a  bolt,  199  ;  aban- 
don Free  Soil  principles  at  Cass's  dic- 
tation, 201,  231 ;  support  the  compro- 
mise and  are  defeated  in  1850,  206, 
207. 

Michigan  Free  Soil  party,  movement 
begins  in  Democratic  party,  122; 
formed,  131;  organized,  144;  vote  in 
1848,  156;  coalesces  with  Whigs  in 
election  of  1848,  158;  desires  Demo- 
cratic fusion,  199;  rejects  Whig  coali- 
tion, 200  ;  later  accepts  it,  203  ;  failure 
of  the  coalition,  203 ;  causes,  204  ; 
decay  of  party  in  1850,  206,  207  ;  agita- 
tion renewed,  246 ;  campaign  of  1852, 
254 ;  continued  cases  of  Whig  fusion, 
256 ;  active  organization  in  1853,  264 ; 
tries  to  utilize  anti-Nebraska  movement 
for  its  own  advantage,  292,  293 ;  decides 
to  join  Republican  movement,  293 ;  dis- 
solves, 294. 

Michigan  Legislature  condemns  abolition, 
20;  opposes  annexation  of  Texas  1838, 
106 ;  favors  Wilmot  Proviso,  no;  in- 
structs senators  to  vote  for  the  Wilmot 
Proviso,  198;  rescinds  the  instructions, 
205. 

Michigan  Liberty  party,  begun,  43 ;  organ- 
izes and  nominates,  52 ;  its  strength 
superior  to  that  of  party  in  other  States, 
52  ;  campaign  of  1841,  55  ;  of  1842,  57  ; 
campaign  and  vote  1843,  5&  >  leaders, 
61 ;  organization  in  1844,  74 ;  contro- 
versy with  Whigs,  74;  efforts  to  dis- 
cover source  of  Garland  forgery,  82,  83 ; 
campaign  of  1845,  86;  debates  broad- 
ening Liberty  platform,  90,  91,  101 ; 


decay  in  1846,  95;  objects  to  Chase's 
Democratic  leanings,  100  ;  favors  a  late 
nomination  in  1847,  "8  ;  rejects  Liberty 
League,  134;  joins  Free  Soil  move- 
ment, 135;  dissolves,  146. 

Michigan  popular  vote  on  negro  suffrage, 
335- 

Michigan  Republican  party  formed  291- 
294. 

Michigan  third  party  press,  320;  vote, 
325-31 ;  no  strong  centre,  327. 

Michigan  Whigs  attack  Liberty  party,  67 ; 
circulate  the  news  of  Birney's  Demo- 
cratic nomination,  76,  77 ;  refuse  to 
assist  Liberty  Men  to  discover  the 
origin  of  the  Garland  forgery,  83 ;  ig- 
nore the  Liberty  party  thereafter,  86; 
attack  Free  S oilers  1848,  149  ;  applaud 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  fusion  1848,  158; 
desire  coalition  in  1849,  198-201  ;  unite 
with  Free  Soilers,  202 ;  arouse  great 
opposition  in  the  party,  202-204 ;  defeat 
Democrats  with  Free  Soil  aid  in  1850, 
206,  207  ;  slow  to  adopt  the  compro- 
mise, 232;  eager  for  a  new  party,  1854, 
291 ;  object  to  Free  Democratic  atti- 
tude, 292;  join  in  Republican  move- 
ment, 293,  294. 

Mobs  against  Abolitionists,  their  causes 
and  effect,  16,  17. 

Moral  and  Religious  agitation,  its  impor- 
tance, 4,  298,299,  300;  its  limitations, 
18;  revival  in  1850-51,  229  ff. 

Morris,  T.,  presents  anti-slavery  petitions 
jn  Congress,  20;  his  career  as  first 
Abolitionist  senator,  24-26;  converted 
by  Birney,  24;  debates  with  Calhoun, 
24 ;  with  Clay,  25 ;  rejected  by  the 
Democrats,  25 ;  slight  public  impression 
made  by  him,  25 ;  popular  with  Ohio 
anti-slavery  men,  30 ;  expelled  from 
Ohio  Democratic  party,  41 ;  joins 
Liberty  party,  42 ;  nominated  for  Vice 
President  in  1841,  53  ;  withdraws  from 
nomination,  69;  renominated  at  Liberty 
Convention  1843,  7°'>  dies>  85  >  nis 
character,  86. 

Morse,  J.  F.,  acts  with  Townshend  in 
Ohio  Legislature  of  1849  [see  Town- 
shend], 163-173;  Free  Soil  leader  in 
Legislature  of  1851,  235  ;  presides  over 
convention  for  Western  Reserve,  238. 


McGEE—OHlO. 


347 


NATIONAL  ERA, established, 90;  influence 
in  the  Northwest,  316,  324. 

Negroes,  restrictions  on  them  in  State 
constitutions,  332-337, 

Negroes  not  allowed  to  participate  in 
Michigan  Liberty  Convention  1843,  $&• 

Nelson,  D.,  early  Illinois  Abolitionist,  17  ; 
helps  to  form  Liberty  party,  42. 

New  England  settlers  furnish  most  of 
the  third-party  vote,  326-331. 

New  York  Tribune,  its  connection  with 
the  Garland  forgery,  77,  82;  its  attack 
on  Birney,  81  ;  influence  in  the  North- 
west, 153 ;  criticises  Free  Democratic 
National  Convention  1852,  249. 

Non-resistance  not  popular  in  the  North- 
west, 33. 

Northern  feeling,  its  first  beginnings,  49, 
105,  106. 

Northwest,  its  political  peculiarities,  i ; 
a  deciding  factor  in  the  anti-slavery 
struggle,  2 ;  political  results  of  its 
settlement,  2,  326-331  ;  indifferent  to 
slavery  in  1830,  6-8 ;  favors  Mexican 
War,  107 ;  favors  internal  improve- 
ments, 123;  tired  of  anti-slavery  poli- 
tics in  1851,  226;  ready  for  a  change 
in  1853,  262,  283,  284 ;  forms  the  Repub- 
lican party  before  the  Eastern  States, 
286  ;  reasons  for  this,  287. 

Northwest  ordinance,  its  influence,  2,  3 ; 
convention  to  celebrate  it  1849,  T77- 

Northwestern  Liberty  Convention,  Chi- 
cago 1846,  89,  100. 

OBERLIN  College,  receives  Lane  Semin- 
ary students  1834,  12;  its  influence  in 
the  Northwest.  12. 

Ohio  anti-Nebraska  campaign,  288,  289. 

Ohio  anti-slavery  societies,  10,  14 ;  State 
Anti-slavery  Society  formed,  14;  its 
views  on  political  action,  28 ;  rejects 
a  third  party,  40. 

Ohio  Constitutional  Convention  elected, 
182  ;  on  negro  rights,  336,  337. 

Ohio  Democrats  repudiate  Thomas 
Morris,  25,  41  ;  condemn  abolitionism, 
44 ;  defend  Black  Laws  in  1846,  92 ; 
demand  the  Wilmot  Proviso  1846-47, 
109;  in  1848,  121  ;  in  the  Legislature 
of  1848-9,  163;  coalesce  with  Town- 
shend  and  Morse  to  repeal  Black  Laws 
and  elect  Chase  to  the  Senate,  165-171 ; 


clamor  for  Free  Soil  reunion,  179;  fuse 
with  Free  Soilers,  180,  182 ;  adopt 
Free  Soil  plank  in  1850,  185 ;  in  1851, 
237 ;  in  1853,  269 ;  success  in  State 
elections,  185,  241,  256,  275. 
Ohio  Free  Soil  party,  its  elements,  anti- 
slavery  Democrats,  121  ;  Free  Soil 
Whigs,  126,  127;  Western  Reserve, 
128 ;  Free  Soil  meetings,  129, 130  ;  Ohio 
People's  Convention,  129;  issues  call 
for  Buffalo  Convention,  129,  130;  party 
organized,  143,  144;  in  State  election 
1848,  152,  153;  campaign  of  1848,  153; 
vote  diminished  by  Van  Buren's  unpop- 
ularity, 155  ;  in  Legislature  of  1849,  see 
Chase,  Townshend;  failure  of  State 
Convention  1849,  169;  party  coalesces 
with  Democrats  1849,  178-181 ;  torn 
in  two  by  Hamilton  County  case,  179; 
decline  in  vote  and  its  cause,  181 ; 
fusions  in  1850,  182-184;  State  Con- 
vention calls  for  Federal  abolition  of 
slavery,  183;  collapse  of  vote,  186; 
party  loses  Whig  and  Democratic 
members,  186 ;  its  identity  henceforth 
with  Liberty  party,  187 ;  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  1851  coalesces  with  Whigs 
to  elect  B.  F.  Wade  to  Senate,  235,  236; 
reorganization  in  1851,  238  ;  condemns 
Chase,  240,  241 ;  small  vote,  241  ;  cam- 
paign of  1852,  251 ;  success  in  electing 
Giddings  and  E.  Wade,  259;  activity 
in  1853,  266;  quarrel  in  State  Conven- 
tion over  Free  Trade,  267  ;  harmony 
restored,  268  ;  tries  to  draw  Whig  vote, 
269;  fuses  with  Whigs  on  Maine  law 
issue  in  People's  tickets,  271,  272  ;  cases 
of  failure  to  fuse,  272  ;  cautious  attitude 
of  party,  273;  enthusiastic  campaign, 
274,  275;  increased  vote,  275;  hopes 
for  the  future,  276,  277 ;  joins  in  anti- 
Nebraska  movement,  287;  urges  a 
strong  platform,  289. 

Ohio  Legislature  on  Black  Laws,  21,  77, 
91  ;  repeals  them,  168 ;  on  abolition, 
22;  passes  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  22; 
censures  J.  Q.  Adams,  67;  opposes 
annexation  of  Texas,  106;  favors  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  1 10 ;  elects  Chase 
to  Senate,  169-171 ;  elects  B.  F.  Wade 
to  Senate,  236. 

Ohio  Liberty  party,  first  independent 
nomination,  40 ;  State  Convention,  40, 


348 


INDEX. 


41  ;  significance  of  vote  in  1840,  47  ; 
organization  at  State  Convention  1841 
50;  election  of  1841,  54;  convention 
and  campaign  of  1842,  56 ;  active  cam- 
paign in  1843,  57  ;  leaders,  60,  61 ;  their 
Strength,  61  ;  State  Convention  cen- 
sures Clay,  72;  organization  in  1844, 
73;  State  election,  76;  damaged  in 
National  election  by  Garland  forgery 
1844,  79;  in  local  election  1845,  855 
campaign  of  1846,  92;  controversy 
with  Whigs,  93;  decline  in  1847,97; 
position  with  regard  to  new  anti-slavery 
theories,  99 ;  suspected  by  the  radicals, 
100 ;  relations  with  Giddings,  112-115; 
its  hatred  of  Giddings,  113;  joins  Free 
Soil  movement,  133;  last  convention 
1848,  133. 
Ohio  third  party  press,  318 ;  vote,  326- 

331- 

Ohio  Whigs,  criticise  Thos.  Morris,  25 ; 
lose  anti-slavery  votes  in  1838,  30 ;  in 
1839,  32  ;  attack  Liberty  party,  45  J 
circulate  Garland  forgery,  78 ;  changed 
attitude  toward  slavery  in  1846,  90;  op- 
pose annexation  of  Texas,  106  -,  favor 
Wilmot  Proviso,  107,  108,  126 ;  bolt  in 

1848,  128;  make  great  efforts  to  carry 
the  State,  153;  in   the  Legislature  of 

1849,  see  Giddings,  Chase,  Townshend; 
attack  Townshend,  Morse,  and  Chase, 
166,  172;   refuse  to  support  Giddings, 
170;  party  continues  Free  Soil  in  1850, 
184;  gains  in  election,  186;  refuses  to 
adopt   the   Compromise   in    1851,  232, 
237 ;  elect  B.  F.  Wade  to  Senate  with 
Free  Soil  aid,  236 ;   attempt   to  defeat 
Giddings    1852,  258,  259;   dulness  in 
1853,  269;  tendency  to  join  Free  Soilers, 
270-273,  276 ;  join  anti-Nebraska  move- 
ment, 288,  289. 

Original  anti-slavery  men  in  the  North- 
west, 8,  9. 

Osborn,  C.,  advocates  immediate  aboli- 
tion in  Indiana,  6,  9,  51. 

PAINE,  J.  H.,  early  third  party  leader  on 
Western  Reserve,  42,  60 ;  active  in  or- 
ganization, 73,  97 ;  at  Buffalo  Conven- 
tion, 142 ;  a  Free  Soil  leader  in  Wis- 
consin, 234. 

Parker,  S.  W.,  Whig  opponent  of  G.  W. 
Julian  in  Indiana,  defeated  1849,  I9°> 


191;  successful  1851,  233,  234;  and 
1852,  256. 

Petitions  in  Congress,  20,  24;  in  North- 
western State  Legislatures,  20. 

Pillsbury,  P.,  agitates  on  the  Western 
Reserve,  102. 

Popular  votes  in  the  Northwest  on  negro 
disabilities,  334-336. 

Porter,  A.  L.,  anti- slavery  leader  in 
Michigan,  43,  62. 

Press,  third  party  press  in  the  North- 
west, 322-324. 

Prophetic  remarks  of  Whigs  and  Demo- 
crats in  1852,  262. 

QUAKERS,  early  anti  -  slavery  feeling 
among,  8,  15;  publish  anti-slavery 
papers,  64  ;  influence  in  Indiana,  57, 
140,  254;  in  Iowa,  325;  furnish  part 
of  third  party  vote  326-331. 

Questioning  of  candidates,  begun  in  Ohio, 
28  ;  apparent  success,,  30 ;  failure,  31 ; 
falls  into  disrepute,  32;  in  Michigan, 
32 ;  finally  abandoned,  50. 

RANKIN,  Rev.  J.,  original  anti-slavery 
agitator  in  Ohio,  9 ;  opposes  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  227. 

Rariden,  J.,  anti-slavery  Whig  in  Indiana, 
opposes  a  third  party,  43,  73. 

Riddle,  A.  G.,  Free  Soiler  in  Ohio  Legis- 
lature 1849,  l63  ft  5  brings  about  com- 
promise between  Whig  and  Democratic 
separate  organizations,  164 ;  supports 
Giddings,  but  is  willing  to  vote  for 
Chase,  172 ;  his  opinion  of  Chase's 
action,  173;  defeated  for  Speaker  in 
Ohio  Legislature,  182;  favors  Whig 
and  Free  Soil  fusion  in  1853,  272. 

Root,  J.  F.,  in  Free  Soil  campaign  1848, 
143;  runs  for  Congress  in  1850  in  hopes 
of  defeating  N.  S.  Townshend,  184; 
at  State  Free  Democratic  Convention 
1851,  238 ;  objects  to  a  Free  Trade  plank 
in  Free  Democratic  platform,  267. 

ST.  CLAIR,  A.,  anti-slavery  agitator  in 

Illinois,  95;   publishes  Iowa  Freeman, 

137,  321- 
Sawyer,  N.,  Free  Soil  Democrat  in  Ohio, 

129;  at  Buffalo  Convention,  142. 
Seamans,  J.  B.,  Free  Soiler  in  Indiana, 

130. 


OHIO—  VAN  BUR  EN. 


349 


Smith,  Rev.  E.,  at  Southern  and  Western 
Convention,  88 ;  at  Buffalo  Convention, 
142,  143 ;  nominated  for  Governor  of 
Ohio  1850,  183. 

Smith,  Gerrit,  an  "Abolitionist"  un- 
til 1861,  5  ;  nominated  for  President 
by  the  Liberty  League,  101  ;  tries  to 
get  Liberty  party  to  adopt  the  Liberty 
League  platform,  119-121  ;  tries  again 
at  Free  Democratic  Convention  in 
1852,  248. 

Southern  and  Western  Liberty  Conven- 
tion, 88-90. 

Southern  elements  in  the  Northwest,  3,  8, 
107,  320-331. 

Spaulding,  R.  P.,  Anti-Slavery  Democrat 
elected  judge  by  Democrats  and  Free 
Soilers  in  1849,  T72  5  at  Northwest 
Ordinance  Convention,  177;  at  Free 
Democratic  National  Convention  1852, 
248  ;  controversy  with  Root  and  others 
over  Free  Trade  in  party  platform, 
267 ;  refuses  to  coalesce  with  Whigs 
in  1853,  272. 

Spooner,  L.,  considers  slavery  unconsti- 
tutional, 98 ;  his  doctrines  rejected  by 
the  Liberty  National  Convention,  119. 

Stanton,  H.  B.,  a  Lane  Seminary  seceder, 
12  ;  urges  a  third  party,  34;  influential 
in  bringing  about  Liberty  and  Barn- 
burner bargain  at  Buffalo  Convention, 
139,  141 ;  criticised  by  Liberty  Men,  147. 

Stevens,  S.  C.,  Liberty  leader  in  Indiana, 
61;  candidate  for  Governor  1846,86; 
joins  Free  Soil  movement,  134;  at  Buf- 
falo Convention,  142;  aids  in  anti-slav- 
ery revival  of  1851,  229. 

Stewart,  C.  H.,  Liberty  leader  in  Michi- 
gan, 62. 

Storrs,  C.  B.,  anti-slavery  president  of 
Western  Reserve  College,  9,  10. 

Sutliff,  M.,  Ohio  Abolitionist  at  formation 
of  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  TI  ; 
Free  Soil  candidate  for  State  judge 
1852,  253. 

TAPPAN,  B.,  supplants  Thomas  Morris  as 
Ohio  Senator,  25  ;  votes  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Texas,  106;  presides  over 
Northwest  Ordinance  Convention  1849, 
177. 

Tappan,  L.,  secures  Liberty  nomination  of 
J.  P.  Hale  1847,  120. 


Texas  annexation  opposed  by  North- 
west 1836-38,  105,  106. 

Theoretical  considerations,  their  excessive 
influence  upon  anti-slavery  men,  98-101, 
178,  222,  306. 

Third  party  disavowed  by  Abolitionists 
1835-38,  28,  29;  first  cases  of  inde- 
pendent nominations,  32 ;  still  disa- 
vowed, 33,  34 ;  growth  of  a  favorable 
feeling,  34,  38;  rejected  by  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  36 ;  see  Liberty 
party. 

Third  party  press  in  the  Northwest,  318- 
324 ;  leading  papers,  322  ;  good  and 
bad  points,  323,  324. 

Third  party  vote  in  the  Northwest,  325- 
331  ;  its  size,  325 ;  distribution,  326- 

331- 

Thome,  J.  A.,  Lane  Seminary  seceder,  12. 

Tichenor,  V.,  anti-slavery  leader  in 
Wisconsin.  63. 

Tilden,  D.  R.,  Free  Soil  Whig  in  Ohio, 
167  ;  declines  nomination  for  Governor, 
183 ;  urges  Free  Democrats  to  endorse 
Scott  for  President  in  1852,  250. 

Tod,  D.,  Democratic  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor of  Ohio  1846,  91,  92. 

Torrey,  C.  T.,  advocates   a  third  party 

1839*  33.  34- 

Townshend,  N.  S.,  Liberty  Man  in  Ohio, 
61 ;  elected  to  Ohio  Legislature  1848  as 
a  Free  Soiler,  163 ;  refuses  to  act  with 
Whig  Free  Soilers,  164;  joins  Chase, 
Morse,  and  Hamlin,  in  a  deal  with  the 
Democrats,  164,  165;  open  rupture 
with  other  Free  Soilers,  166;  abused 
by  Whigs,  167,  173  ;  unites  with  Demo- 
crats to  elect  Chase  to  Senate,  171  ; 
defence  of  his  action,  173,  174;  his  mis- 
take, 174  ;  defeated  by  Free  Soilers  for 
re-election,  179;  elected  to  constitu- 
tional convention  by  Democrats,  182 ; 
his  action  there,  337  ;  elected  to  Con- 
gress by  Democrats  1850,  184,  185 ; 
joins  Democratic  party,  241. 

Treadwell,  S.  B.  editor  of  Michigan  Free- 
man, 62 ;  favors  third  party  1839,  43 ; 
at  Buffalo  Convention,  142. 

Turner,  Nat,  effect  of  his  insurrection  on 
Southern  view  of  abolitionism,  16. 

VAN  BUREN,  John,  at  Northwest  Ordi- 
nance Convention,  177. 


350 


INDEX. 


Van  Buren,  Martin,  opposed  by  Ohio 
Abolitionists  1836,28,38;  his  chances 
for  nomination  at  Buffalo  Convention, 
139;  nominated  by  Liberty  votes,  141  ; 
his  nomination  repels  Liberty  men,  145; 
and  Whigs,  146,  147,  155,  160;  abused 
by  Democrats,  148. 

Vaughn,  J.  C.,  anti-Taylor  Whig  in  1848, 
129 ;  at  Ohio  Free  Territory  Conven- 
tion, 179;  at  Buffalo  Convention,  142; 
at  Western  Reserve  Convention  1849, 
177  ;  works  for  Whig  and  Free  Demo- 
cratic I  fusion  1853,  272;  editor  of 
Cleveland  True  Democrat,  318,  322. 

Vote  of  the  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties, 
325  ff.,  also  46,  £5-59,  74,  76,  79,  80, 
8 5-87»  93~98»  I/4-i57,  181,  186,  191, 
197,  203,  ^07,  /i  3,  215,  217,  219,  234, 
235,1241,  2^2,2^6,  258,  259,  275,  281. 

WADE~B.  F.,  anti-slavery  action  in  Ohio 
Legislature  1838-39,  21,  23  ;  defeated 
for  re-election  as  a  result,  32  ;  does  not 
join  Liberty  party,  40 ;  advocates  elec- 
tion of  Bebb  in  1846  on  anti-slavery 
grounds,  93 ;  works  for  Taylor  in  1848, 
153  ;  elected  senator  by  Whig  and  Free 
Democratic  votes  1851,  236,  237;  his 
sincerity  doubted  by  Giddings,  237 ; 
attacks  Giddings  in  1852,  259. 

Wade,  Edward,  a  Whig  in  1840,  joins 
Liberty  party,  61  ;  attacks  Clay  for 
being  a  duelist,  72 ;  runs  against  Gid- 
dings for  Congress,  112;  Free  Soil 
candidate  for  judge  in  Ohio  Legislature 
1849,  defeated  by  Townshend  and 
Morse,  172  ;  elected  to  Congress  1852, 
258,  259;  favors  Whig  and  Free  Soil 
coalition  in  1853,  272. 

Walker,  I.  P.,  elected  Senator  from  Wis- 
consin 1849,  208 ;  censured  by  Legis- 
lature for  disobeying  anti-slavery  in- 
structions, 209. 

Weld,  T.  D.,  anti-slavery  leader  at  Lane 
Seminary,  u;  agitates  successfully  in 
Ohio,  12,  13;  mobbed  in  1839,  16;  con- 
verts Giddings,  25. 

Wentworth,  John,  advocates  non-exten- 
sion of  slavery,  1847,  IIO5  refuses  to 
support  Cass,  124;  nominated  for  Con- 
gress without  a  platform,  125;  decides 
not  to  join  Free  Soil  movement,  151 ; 
his  opportunity,  304,  305. 


Western  Citizen,  leading  anti-slavery  paper 
west  of  Ohio,  323  ;  see  Eastman,  Z. 

Western  Reserve,  becomes  anti-slavery, 
13 ;  centre  of  abolitionism  in  Ohio, 
304,  326,  328,  330 ;  indignant  at  Fugi- 
tive Slave  Law  1839,  31  ;  begins  third 
party,  42  ;  begins  Liberty  Organization, 
50;  opposes  Black  Laws  1840-46,  90, 
91;  opposes  Taylor  1847,  108,  127: 
bolts,  128;  supports  Giddings,  151; 
objects  to  Van  Buren's  candidacy,  155  ; 
attacks  Chase,  Townshend,  and  Morse 
for  uniting  with  Democrats  in  1849, 
166,  173,  176;  "Harmony"  Conven- 
tion 1849,  J77  >  condemns  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  1851  227;  leads  in  move- 
ment to  revive  the  Free  Democratic 
party  1851,  238;  attacks  Chase  for 
joining  the  Democrats,  240,  251  ;  leads 
in  "People's"  movement  1853,  271, 
272;  leads  in  anti-Nebraska  fusion 
1854,  287,  288. 

Whig  party  furnishes  most  of  the  Aboli- 
tionists, 39,  50;  attacks  the  Liberty 
party,  45  and  note;  demands  anti- 
slavery  votes  1842-44,  57  ;  its  dislike  of 
the  ^Liberty  party,  67 ;  opposes  Texas 
annexation  1844,  7°;  demands  Aboli- 
tionist support,  71,  75,  76;  angered  at 
Liberty  attacks  on  Clay,  72,  73 ;  hatred 
of  Liberty  party  after  1844,  80,  83  ;  re- 
fuses to  admit  Clay's  fault,  80  ;  abuses 
Birney,  81,  82;  admits  the  falsity  of 
Garland  forgery  after  the  election,  82  ; 
favors  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  107,  127; 
failure  of  Whig  bolt  in  1848,  147,  160; 
attacks  the  Free  Soil  party,  149,  150; 
furnishes  most  of  Free  Soil  vote  in 
Ohio,  179;  cases  of  Whig  and  Free 
Soil  coalition,  223 ;  slow  to  adopt 
compromise  in  the  Northwest,  232,  233  ; 
refuses  to  discuss  slavery  in  1852,  255  ; 
favors  Free  Soilers  after  1852,  261, 262  ; 
ready  for  anti-slavery  action  in  1853, 
283,  284;  forms  Republican  party  in  the 
Northwest,  287. 

Willey,  Austin,  at  Northwest  Ordinance 
Convention  1849,  177. 

Wisconsin  anti-slavery  societies,  59. 

Wisconsin  constitutional  conventions  on 
negro  privileges,  332,  333. 

Wisconsin  Democrats  attack  Liberty 
party,  16;  object  to  Cass  in  1848,  123; 


VAN  BUREN—  WRIGHT. 


351 


some  refuse  to  support  him,  124,  126; 
claim  Free  Soil  principles  in  1849, 148; 
demand  "  reunion,"  208;  fuse  with  Free 
Soilers,  209;  withdraw  from  coalition, 
and  entrap  the  Free  Soilers,  210,  211  ; 
success  in  election,  213;  defeated  by 
Whigs  and  Free  Soilers  in  1850,  214, 
215  ;  adopt  the  compromise,  231 ;  defeat 
Whig  and  Free  Soil  fusion  1853,  2^°- 

Wisconsin  Free  Soil  party,  formed,  126, 
I3I  i  organized,  144,  145  ;  vote  in  1848, 
157;  chances  in  1849,  208;  offers  to 
coalesce,  208-210;  failure  of  coalition, 
210,  2ii  ;  outwitted  by  Democrats,  212; 
discouraged  in  1850,  213  ;  vote  disap- 
pears in  1850,  215  ;  reorganized  in  1851, 
234;  coalesces  with  Whigs,  235;  cam- 
paign of  1852,  254 ;  organization  and 
enthusiasm  in  1853,  278,  279 ;  "  Peo- 
ple's "  Convention,  280;  fusion  with 
Whigs  wrecked  by  Farwell's  refusal, 
280 ;  but  hindered  only  by  accident, 
281  ;  case  not  like  Michigan  in  1849, 
281  ;  joins  Republican  movement,  296 ; 
failed  to  take  advantage  of  its  oppor- 
tunities, 304. 

Wisconsin  Legislature  favors  Wilmot 
Proviso,  209;  censures  Senator  Walker 
for  disobeying  instructions,  209 ;  repeats 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  instructions,  214; 
rescinds  them  1851,  231. 

Wisconsin  Liberty  party,  begun  1843,  59; 
organization  1844,  75 ;  favorable  atti- 


tude toward  new  anti-slavery  theories, 
101 ;  regrets  formation  of  Liberty 
League,  102;  favors  an  early  nomina- 
tion in  1847,  118;  refuses  to  support 
Hale,  120,  136;  campaign  of  1848,135; 
finally  joins  Free  Soil  movement,  136, 
146. 

Wisconsin  popular  votes  on  negro  suf- 
frage, 98,  333. 

Wisconsin  third  party  press,  321  ;  vote, 

327-3I- 

Wisconsin  Whigs  claim  to  stand  for  Free 
Soil  1848,  127,  150;  adopt  Free  Soil 
principles  in  1849,  2I3>  unite  with  Free 
Soilers  and  anti-slavery  Democrats  to 
elect  Durkee  and  Doty  1850,  215;  re- 
fuse to  adopt  the  compromise,  233 ; 
partial  coalition  with  Free  Democrats 
1851,  234,  235 ;  refuse  to  vote  for  Durkee 
in  1852, 256,  257  ;  desire  to  coalesce  with 
Free  Soilers  in  1853,  279 ;  the  "  Peo- 
ple's "  movement,  280  ;  ready  for  a  new 
party  in  1853,  281-282  ;  join  the  Repub- 
lican movement,  296. 

Wright,  E.,  Jr.,  original  Abolitionist  in 
Western  Reserve  College,  9,  10 ;  at 
formation  of  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  n;  urges  a  third  party  1839, 
34 ;  his  estimate  of  voting  Abolitionists 
in  1840,  46. 

Wright,  J.  W.,  Indiana  Free  Soil  Demo- 
crat, at  Buffalo  Convention,  142;  can- 
didate for  Lieut.  Governor  1849,188,189. 


Harvard   Historical   Studies. 

Published  under  the  Direction  of  the  Department  of  History  and  Gov- 
ernment from  the  Income  of  the  Henry  Warren  Torrey  Fund. 


THIS  SERIES  will  comprise  works  of  original  research 
selected  from  the  recent  writings  of  teachers  and  grad- 
uate students  in  the  Department  of  History  and  Government 
in  Harvard  University.  The  series  will  also  include  collec- 
tions of  documents,  bibliographies,  reprints  of  rare  tracts,  etc. 
The  monographs  will  appear  at  irregular  intervals ;  but  it  is 
hoped  that  three  volumes  will  be  published  annually. 

The  following  -volumes  are  now  ready. 

I.  THE  SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  AFRICAN  SLAVE-TRADE 
TO  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  1638-1870. 
By  W.  E.  B.  Du  Bois,  Ph.D.,  Professor  in  Wilberforce  Univer- 
sity. 8vo.  pp.  xi-335.  $1.50  net. 

II.  THE  CONTEST  OVER  THE  RATIFICATION  OF  THE 
FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION  IN  THE  STATE  OF  MAS- 
SACHUSETTS. By  S.  B.  HARDING,  A.M.,  Assistant  Professor 
of  History  in  Indiana  University.  8vo.  pp.  vi-194.  $1.25  net. 

III.  A   CRITICAL   STUDY  OF  NULLIFICATION   IN   SOUTH 

CAROLINA.  By  D.  F.  HOUSTON,  A.M.,  Adjunct  Professor 
of  Political  Science  in  the  University  of  Texas.  8vo.  pp.  x-i6g. 
$1.25  net. 

IV.  NOMINATIONS     FOR     ELECTIVE     OFFICE     IN     THE 

UNITED  STATES.  By  FREDERICK  W.  DALLINGER,  A.M., 
Member  of  the  Massachusetts  Senate;  formerly  Secretary  of  the 
Republican  City  Committee  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts.  8vo. 
pp.  xiv-29o.  $1.50  net. 

V.  A  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  BRITISH  MUNICIPAL  HISTORY, 
INCLUDING  GILDS  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  REP- 
RESENTATION. By  CHARLES  GROSS,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Pro- 
fessor of  History  in  Harvard  University.  8vo.  pp.  xxxiv~46i. 
$2.50  net. 

VI.  THE  LIBERTY  AND  FREE  SOIL  PARTIES  IN  THE 
NORTHWEST.  By  THEODORE  C.  SMITH,  Ph.D.  8vo.  pp. 
xii-35i.  $1.7  5  net. 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  PUBLISHERS, 

91   AND  93   FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK, 
LONDON    AND   BOMBAY. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  •*      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


AUG181992 

A  1  IT"/""\     ri  i  i~i  — 

AUTO.  DISL 

AUG  i:j  lyy 

*? 

QIRGUI  A-nr 

*  } 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  12/80        BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


'General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


*>.. 


